Buddy, I think you made some pretty big assumptions there yourself.
I see almost everyone - not just democrats - misunderstanding what the different branches of the government are for.
But keep rooting for your team there, ok? One of you (democrats or republicans) are surely going to win someday!
... where X,Ys/FROM/TO/g can be something like -10,.s/FROM/TO/g (previous 10 lines & current) or.,+5s/FROM/TO/g (this line and next 5). Also, $ = last line so you can do something line.,$s/FROM/TO/g for everything from the current line to the end of the file.
I've worked in a call center before (not a large one even). As long as your voice isn't extremely masculine, and you have the correct information, most will let it pass. There's a wide range of voices out there.
I remember one account had a special note (at the customer's request) warning that "Pat"* was FEMALE, yes she has a deep voice, the caller is she. Without that cue, I would have sworn she was male. She probably sang baritone, her voice was definitely too low for tenor.
*Pat was not the person's real name, but I specifically remember it was a gender neutral name.
Huh. I grew up pretty poor and have clawed my way up to upper middle class as an adult. I've got friends barely making it, others living pretty well, and you know what? Their views on drugs are pretty evenly spread out, some are liberal, some not. It doesn't matter whether they have money or not, or whether or not they have a substance abuser in the family or as a friend.
I'd agree with the statement that most people don't understand statistics well enough to independently evaulate this information. I'll also agree that an awareness of bias is not offtopic.
However!! Distrusting data simply because of it's source IS ad hominem. It is not logical, as you mentioned. As a matter of fact, I'm pretty sure that's one of the the DEFINITIONS of ad hominem.
In either case, as you mentioned, peer review is generally very good at weeding out bias. One of the reasons for that is scientific peer review is pretty conservative, in the non political sense of the word. I'm pretty sure this study will be subjected to stringent peer review, like most anything including politics and statistics does. It's hard to tell which way the media will go. Larger news sources in the USA tend to be conservative, in most senses of the word. You don't gain and keep the trust of people with speculation. I doubt we've heard the last about this issue, but I also doubt that much will be said by the media about this until others have done more investigation.
From the article:
A technician hired by the new judiciary chairman, Patrick Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, apparently made a mistake that allowed anyone to access newly created accounts on a Judiciary Committee server shared by both parties -- even though the accounts were supposed to restrict access only to those with the right password.
It existed, it was documented, and it was ignored.
If that's true, why is it only Republicans who stooped to using and distributing files from this backdoor? According to the statement above, the files for both parties were available to everyone.
It doesn't make it any more ethical, just because it was easy.
Has anyone here heard of something called the "Ziploc Freezer Bag?" It's this really high tech device that is really good at keeping liquids in and incidentally, liquids out.
I can't flip a paper page with wet hands, but I can press a button just fine through the plastic.
Also, since the Palm/Pocket PC is backlit, I don't have to worry about keeping my partner up with the lights on while I read in bed.
And I strain my eyes a lot less since I can actually see the screen....Text too small?? You can change the font!
Never thought I'd say this about Slashdotters, but y'all sound like a bunch luddites.
Refer them to this site, or print off some choice pages and hand it out in class. Ask them what they think they should do about educating the public... etc.
After that, you can tell them that gullible is no longer in the dictionary. Hope that there aren't any who hesitate and look around before rolling their eyes and groaning.
What are the main differences in the types of yeast used for making bread, versus the types of yeast used for making beer? Could someone, for example, take a beer yeast culture and make a decent sourdough from it?
I don't know the specific chemical difference between the types of yeasts commonly used in brewing vs the yeasts commonly used in baking, but speaking from experience, some of the best damn sourdough I've ever made had a beer + flour rather than water + flour base. (FYI - if you try this at home, use a light beer. Trust me.)
I also know that there are different mechanical processes used to create commercial baking yeasts, in terms of the size of the granules. Smaller granules are used to make what we know as 'fast-acting' or 'single-rise' yeasts
From my brewing days, ale yeasts are quite different from lager yeasts, mainly in the temperature that they are active and happy in. Lager yeasts need colder temperatures (cold meaning ~65 degrees F). Lager yeast is also a top fermenting yeast rather than bottom fermenting like an ale yeast and is a fairly recent innovation.
Here's an interesting food site explaining some differences in yeasts.
Slashdot Mirror
My favorite response to that is (local area code)-867-5309.
Sometimes you'll get an aware cashier who'll start singing along.
... before you assume.
Buddy, I think you made some pretty big assumptions there yourself. I see almost everyone - not just democrats - misunderstanding what the different branches of the government are for.
But keep rooting for your team there, ok? One of you (democrats or republicans) are surely going to win someday!
... where X,Ys/FROM/TO/g can be something like -10,.s/FROM/TO/g (previous 10 lines & current) or .,+5s/FROM/TO/g (this line and next 5). Also, $ = last line so you can do something line .,$s/FROM/TO/g for everything from the current line to the end of the file.
I've worked in a call center before (not a large one even). As long as your voice isn't extremely masculine, and you have the correct information, most will let it pass. There's a wide range of voices out there.
I remember one account had a special note (at the customer's request) warning that "Pat"* was FEMALE, yes she has a deep voice, the caller is she. Without that cue, I would have sworn she was male. She probably sang baritone, her voice was definitely too low for tenor.
*Pat was not the person's real name, but I specifically remember it was a gender neutral name.
Huh. I grew up pretty poor and have clawed my way up to upper middle class as an adult. I've got friends barely making it, others living pretty well, and you know what? Their views on drugs are pretty evenly spread out, some are liberal, some not. It doesn't matter whether they have money or not, or whether or not they have a substance abuser in the family or as a friend.
I'd agree with the statement that most people don't understand statistics well enough to independently evaulate this information. I'll also agree that an awareness of bias is not offtopic.
However!!
Distrusting data simply because of it's source IS ad hominem. It is not logical, as you mentioned. As a matter of fact, I'm pretty sure that's one of the the DEFINITIONS of ad hominem.
In either case, as you mentioned, peer review is generally very good at weeding out bias. One of the reasons for that is scientific peer review is pretty conservative, in the non political sense of the word. I'm pretty sure this study will be subjected to stringent peer review, like most anything including politics and statistics does. It's hard to tell which way the media will go. Larger news sources in the USA tend to be conservative, in most senses of the word. You don't gain and keep the trust of people with speculation. I doubt we've heard the last about this issue, but I also doubt that much will be said by the media about this until others have done more investigation.
From the article:
A technician hired by the new judiciary chairman, Patrick Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, apparently made a mistake that allowed anyone to access newly created accounts on a Judiciary Committee server shared by both parties -- even though the accounts were supposed to restrict access only to those with the right password.
It existed, it was documented, and it was ignored.
If that's true, why is it only Republicans who stooped to using and distributing files from this backdoor? According to the statement above, the files for both parties were available to everyone.
It doesn't make it any more ethical, just because it was easy.
Has anyone here heard of something called the "Ziploc Freezer Bag?" It's this really high tech device that is really good at keeping liquids in and incidentally, liquids out.
...Text too small?? You can change the font!
I can't flip a paper page with wet hands, but I can press a button just fine through the plastic.
Also, since the Palm/Pocket PC is backlit, I don't have to worry about keeping my partner up with the lights on while I read in bed.
And I strain my eyes a lot less since I can actually see the screen.
Never thought I'd say this about Slashdotters, but y'all sound like a bunch luddites.
I'm don't want to pick at you, but I laughed until I cried at the picture of this:
contraceptions in the shape of cows
Damn those Chinese are ingenious.
Slate has recently released a somewhat-inspired article about what the Matrix was. You have to read it for yourself.
/. comments. You must read it for yourself.
Have things gotten so bad that people have to be explicitly directed to read the article??
Unfortunately, one cannot understand this article just by reading
Disclaimer: IANAL
But you don't have to use the DMCA if you don't want to.
Title 17, Chapter 5 of Federal law provided for civil and criminal remedies for copyright infringment before the DMCA
For the most part, if you read the DMCA (PDF), mostly all it does is add section 512 to the existing laws.
Take a peek at this federal website website. This one is even better: website.
Refer them to this site, or print off some choice pages and hand it out in class. Ask them what they think they should do about educating the public... etc.
Then you can show them this site.
After that, you can tell them that gullible is no longer in the dictionary. Hope that there aren't any who hesitate and look around before rolling their eyes and groaning.
-eg
What are the main differences in the types of yeast used for making bread, versus the types of yeast used for making beer? Could someone, for example, take a beer yeast culture and make a decent sourdough from it?
I don't know the specific chemical difference between the types of yeasts commonly used in brewing vs the yeasts commonly used in baking, but speaking from experience, some of the best damn sourdough I've ever made had a beer + flour rather than water + flour base.
(FYI - if you try this at home, use a light beer. Trust me.)
I also know that there are different mechanical processes used to create commercial baking yeasts, in terms of the size of the granules. Smaller granules are used to make what we know as 'fast-acting' or 'single-rise' yeasts
From my brewing days, ale yeasts are quite different from lager yeasts, mainly in the temperature that they are active and happy in. Lager yeasts need colder temperatures (cold meaning ~65 degrees F). Lager yeast is also a top fermenting yeast rather than bottom fermenting like an ale yeast and is a fairly recent innovation.
Here's an interesting food site explaining some differences in yeasts.