It isn't a lost cause, though. There was a certain recent presidential candidate promising to deeply cut into this infrastructure that provides so much power to the MIC. With just a teeny bit more popularity, more charisma, etc, we could see such a person elected in our lifetimes.
The commander in chief could, at a minimum:
Evacuate bases Reposition troops Cease/Limit spending Adjust recruitment and retention quotas Provide mission guidance to each branch of the military
So he could tell the navy to patrol our shores, the army to train in Alaska, the Air Force to patrol our borders, etc, etc, etc. Limit the headcount to the number of people necessary for those orders, and freeze all spending outside of them. Basically anything a CEO could do, the president could likely pull of - within the confines of the Armed Forces.
Others have attempted to explain the idiom, but I feel it actually serves a very useful purpose:
'if' means 'uncertain immediate possibility' 'when' means 'certain eventuality'
'If it happens' means it could happen at any moment, and we should prepare. "If we get into an accident, call 911."
'When it happens' means it will occur somewhere down the road. "When we need gas, we'll find a station and stretch our legs."
'If and when it happens' combines these two concepts for events that could occur at any moment, but are likely to be somewhere off down the road. "If and when we get a flat, this is how you change the tire."
Nuances are what make our language great. Please don't work so hard to sterilize it.
Not everyone likes 3rd person view for all games. I think it sucks for when you control a walking/running character and need to aim. That's the job of 1st person view.
So very this.
I hated the disconnect between 'WASD moving in perspective' to 'full on strafe, with mouse turning'. It was jarring.
Real business happens on the golf course. WoW is just another golf course.
My CDW guy and I have talked WoW after talking shop for more total hours over the years than either of us would care to admit. It is the sort of commonality that moves us from 'associates' towards 'friends'. We don't even play together, but being able to compare and discuss our common hobby is an asset, to be sure.
I know from personal experience 99.999% of WoW players are morons and whiners who stand in fire and cry about gearscore and dps charts, so statistically you would probably be a terrible employee.
You're contradicting yourself to the point of making your estimates accurate. You've combined the noobs (stand in fire) with the leets (gearscore/recount). With the oblivious and the uppity all together in one group, I'm less than surprised that there's no one left.
I'm also underwhelmed to find that you can point to a group as large and diverse as 'WoW players' and find extreme examples of bad behavior.
What does mildly surprise me is that you're both oblivious to the fact that this applies to any large group AND you're allowed to hire people. That contradiction is a bit hard to swallow, but I guess that's probably not too strange in the corporate world, is it?
I'd just like to point out that you're exactly right - in everything but the assumption that you are going to spark some form of outrage.
Look at what the expansionists in the United States did to the natives that were living there. 'Genocide done right' isn't too horrible of a way to phrase it. There was an enemy culture there, and now they're either all dead or assimilated.
It happens, and isn't always a 'bad thing' so long as you're on the winning side. Or, if you disagree, I assume you could always deed your land back into the hands of one of the native tribes that used to inhabit it.
Back on point, though, Steam really is the best kind of DRM to have, and so long as you're on the right side of it, it really does benefit you as an individual.
It is clear you only read enough of the words to formulate a rebuttal, and thus I'm not going to honor you with a reply just yet.
On the contrary. I read every foolish word you wrote, even if I chose not to echo them all. I addressed each falsehood you raised. My friend you are both so badly misinformed and so much my intellectual inferior that there can be no honour in receiving a reply from you.
So your line of thinking is: Because it is arrogant to believe humanity can affect the Earth's climate, the climate data, statistics or the statistical models incorporating the data must be wrong.
Damn you for drawing me into one of the most pointless scientific debates that one could possibly devise. I hesitated to click on this story, and regret replying already. Oh well, too late now. The keys are already flowing...
Let's begin with this comment from above, because it really is genuinely insightful:
Denialism also refers to a set of rhetorical strategies used to create the impression of uncertainty where none exists.
Pot, meet Kettle. Except you're doing the opposite. So...
Denialism also refers to a set of rhetorical strategies used to create the impression of certainty where none exists.
You've stated that because the Earth has climate, which produces data, which can be analyzed by statistics, that the entirety of every conclusion drawn upon this data is beyond doubt.
Look at the facts:
1) The Earth has climate which we do know changes with or without human intervention. The argument for 'Natural Global Warming' is well settled. Everyone knows it happens, the end.
2) Anyone and everyone can chart stats to say whatever they want. Look to any political topic and you'll find scores of data predicting all sorts of outcomes. These may or may not predict the actual future. Likewise look to any medical journal over the course of humanity. Inside you'll find articles that were proven incorrect. Drilling deeper, look for five minutes and you'll find a raft of statisticians from the 70's using the same data to draw completely incorrect conclusions and make false predictions. In short, we're still learning, and we make mistakes along the way.
3) The Earth has proven notoriously difficult to model. Neither weather, nor sinkholes, nor earthquakes, nor tornadoes - none of this is accurately modeled with any degree of certainty. If your computer powered up at success rates similar to these prediction methods, it would soon find a new home at the recycling center. So while the models exist, they are far from 'good' as of yet.
So you're expecting a leap of faith. Specifically that:
A) This climate change is different, and we know this is true with enough certainty to up-end western civilization.
B) This data is better, these scientists are smarter, and their stats are correct. Again, without room for doubt.
C) These models are the first ones to be completely correct - well, ever.
That much faith is not science, it's religion.
We can just run science on a sense of moral outrage and gut feeling. Yeah!
Don't look now, but this is precisely what your post advocates. Just because you happen to agree with the conclusion doesn't mean you're any less of a zealot.
Not that this is wrong, but only that it is completely ignorant of human culture, motivations, and history. You've abated the entire science of psychology in your analysis, which to me is insane to the point of mockery.
Amazing. Absolutely amazing. I didn't think it possible for someone to be that dumb. *Humans didn't exist in the time of dinosaurs.* The only things that survived were little mouse-like mammals and dinosaurs (which eventually birds). Anything as big as a human being starved due to lack of sun, and lack of food.
So you're purporting an evolutionary path between mice and hominids? What's your source?
Besides, 'as big as a modern human' is irrelevant, and if you're going to call me dumb you ought to at least acknowledge that.
They probably seized some equipment as evidence in an investigation and the numbers are just grossly over-inflated for sensationalist reasons. Seizing a couple of servers that have 10,000 customers each isn't the same thing as "ordering the sites off-line" -- it's seizing the hardware in order to protect chain of evidence and integrity of the data seized. It's still kind of a dick move, but I'm not really going to take the bitching of people who seem to be perfectly willing to watch movies but don't want to pay for them.
If yours is a legitimate business that was sitting beside these filesharers, it would be roughly the same thing. They're not being told why their site is offline, nor when to expect it to come back up. It would seem that, in order to protect the rights of the innocent bystanders that they would order the server imaged, rather than shut down and the staff gagged.
No, but I've seen countless documentaries on it blaming everyone from the CIA to Castro. How many Tienanmen Square documentaries do think are aired on China TV?
So as long as any information is divulged, your standard is met? Because that's still way too biased for my tastes. You are, however, tacitly acknowledging the point that both governments withhold information deemed prudent. Your only objection then, would be to the degree.
That's fine, but you'll have to go back up and redefine your position...
Ruby Ridge was bad. But Waco? This guy was holding hundreds hostage and attempted to burn down the building around them. The US Gov't screwed it up pretty bad, but they did have a court order that allowed them to enter. They should have just tried knocking first instead of kicking the door in.
Yeah, most people don't really know the true story either, so don't feel too bad.
The real sequence of events was that the ATF did knock first, and there was a conversation in front of the house. We'll never know who shot first, but somehow those trained government agents went from a tax stamp violation to shooting people in a matter of minutes.
Look into it. It was almost certainly worse than you realize.
Unless you are considering the Civil War, the US gov't has not killed millions.
Well that is an interesting point, but no I don't think that this would be appropriate in a discussion of recent history. Neither would the Chinese culture revolution, but I don't think you've brought that up specifically.
No, what I meant was, a ratio of three million people would net a MUCH larger sample once factored against two billion people. 'Guantanamo and Tienanmen Square' itself may indeed be 'apples and oranges' but 'Chinese oppression and US oppression' is 'apples and crab apples'.
Again, the GP was comparing Gitmo to China.
That's nice. There's a greater topic, though, with more posts in it than only the one that supports your point. Take, for example:
Twist it how you want to, but the fact remains that both countries act like assholes and US is in the same level.
That's comparing countries, of which Guantanamo would be only one isolated example. So depending on how far up the conversation you're willing to go, one of us is off topic.
I object to the use of the term 'battlefield'. Italy, for example, was not at any time within the scope of any legal operation[1]. I think that this term romanticizes things a tad, don't you?
Slashdot Mirror
It isn't a lost cause, though. There was a certain recent presidential candidate promising to deeply cut into this infrastructure that provides so much power to the MIC. With just a teeny bit more popularity, more charisma, etc, we could see such a person elected in our lifetimes.
The commander in chief could, at a minimum:
Evacuate bases
Reposition troops
Cease/Limit spending
Adjust recruitment and retention quotas
Provide mission guidance to each branch of the military
So he could tell the navy to patrol our shores, the army to train in Alaska, the Air Force to patrol our borders, etc, etc, etc. Limit the headcount to the number of people necessary for those orders, and freeze all spending outside of them. Basically anything a CEO could do, the president could likely pull of - within the confines of the Armed Forces.
Deep cuts are possible, with the right president.
Well, if foo isn't imminent, then why is it relevant?
"Here's how you change the tyre if we get a flat"
Oh, no, I might break a nail...
Others have attempted to explain the idiom, but I feel it actually serves a very useful purpose:
'if' means 'uncertain immediate possibility'
'when' means 'certain eventuality'
'If it happens' means it could happen at any moment, and we should prepare. "If we get into an accident, call 911."
'When it happens' means it will occur somewhere down the road. "When we need gas, we'll find a station and stretch our legs."
'If and when it happens' combines these two concepts for events that could occur at any moment, but are likely to be somewhere off down the road. "If and when we get a flat, this is how you change the tire."
Nuances are what make our language great. Please don't work so hard to sterilize it.
If Lucas wrote the script, it would have been:
d. Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!
Yes, yes, and your mother was a Romulan and we're all insensitive clods...
No wonder he turned to bank robbery after panhandling. He likely acquired the funds enough to buy a pistol and took a leap of faith.
Sounds like a decent flick, actually. Maybe the Chad Vader guys will pick it up...
Not everyone likes 3rd person view for all games. I think it sucks for when you control a walking/running character and need to aim. That's the job of 1st person view.
So very this.
I hated the disconnect between 'WASD moving in perspective' to 'full on strafe, with mouse turning'. It was jarring.
Real business happens on the golf course. WoW is just another golf course.
My CDW guy and I have talked WoW after talking shop for more total hours over the years than either of us would care to admit. It is the sort of commonality that moves us from 'associates' towards 'friends'. We don't even play together, but being able to compare and discuss our common hobby is an asset, to be sure.
I know from personal experience 99.999% of WoW players are morons and whiners who stand in fire and cry about gearscore and dps charts, so statistically you would probably be a terrible employee.
You're contradicting yourself to the point of making your estimates accurate. You've combined the noobs (stand in fire) with the leets (gearscore/recount). With the oblivious and the uppity all together in one group, I'm less than surprised that there's no one left.
I'm also underwhelmed to find that you can point to a group as large and diverse as 'WoW players' and find extreme examples of bad behavior.
What does mildly surprise me is that you're both oblivious to the fact that this applies to any large group AND you're allowed to hire people. That contradiction is a bit hard to swallow, but I guess that's probably not too strange in the corporate world, is it?
That's like saying "Genocide done right".
All DRM is evil, period.
I'd just like to point out that you're exactly right - in everything but the assumption that you are going to spark some form of outrage.
Look at what the expansionists in the United States did to the natives that were living there. 'Genocide done right' isn't too horrible of a way to phrase it. There was an enemy culture there, and now they're either all dead or assimilated.
It happens, and isn't always a 'bad thing' so long as you're on the winning side. Or, if you disagree, I assume you could always deed your land back into the hands of one of the native tribes that used to inhabit it.
Back on point, though, Steam really is the best kind of DRM to have, and so long as you're on the right side of it, it really does benefit you as an individual.
It is clear you only read enough of the words to formulate a rebuttal, and thus I'm not going to honor you with a reply just yet.
On the contrary. I read every foolish word you wrote, even if I chose not to echo them all. I addressed each falsehood you raised. My friend you are both so badly misinformed and so much my intellectual inferior that there can be no honour in receiving a reply from you.
And yet you chose to reply.
It is clear you only read enough of the words to formulate a rebuttal, and thus I'm not going to honor you with a reply just yet.
Try harder, and I'll consider it.
The point is important, and from your response I can tell you are rather confused. Please do consider giving it a better effort, for your own sake. :)
So your line of thinking is: Because it is arrogant to believe humanity can affect the Earth's climate, the climate data, statistics or the statistical models incorporating the data must be wrong.
Damn you for drawing me into one of the most pointless scientific debates that one could possibly devise. I hesitated to click on this story, and regret replying already. Oh well, too late now. The keys are already flowing...
Let's begin with this comment from above, because it really is genuinely insightful:
Denialism also refers to a set of rhetorical strategies used to create the impression of uncertainty where none exists.
Pot, meet Kettle. Except you're doing the opposite. So...
Denialism also refers to a set of rhetorical strategies used to create the impression of certainty where none exists.
You've stated that because the Earth has climate, which produces data, which can be analyzed by statistics, that the entirety of every conclusion drawn upon this data is beyond doubt.
Look at the facts:
1) The Earth has climate which we do know changes with or without human intervention. The argument for 'Natural Global Warming' is well settled. Everyone knows it happens, the end.
2) Anyone and everyone can chart stats to say whatever they want. Look to any political topic and you'll find scores of data predicting all sorts of outcomes. These may or may not predict the actual future. Likewise look to any medical journal over the course of humanity. Inside you'll find articles that were proven incorrect. Drilling deeper, look for five minutes and you'll find a raft of statisticians from the 70's using the same data to draw completely incorrect conclusions and make false predictions. In short, we're still learning, and we make mistakes along the way.
3) The Earth has proven notoriously difficult to model. Neither weather, nor sinkholes, nor earthquakes, nor tornadoes - none of this is accurately modeled with any degree of certainty. If your computer powered up at success rates similar to these prediction methods, it would soon find a new home at the recycling center. So while the models exist, they are far from 'good' as of yet.
So you're expecting a leap of faith. Specifically that:
A) This climate change is different, and we know this is true with enough certainty to up-end western civilization.
B) This data is better, these scientists are smarter, and their stats are correct. Again, without room for doubt.
C) These models are the first ones to be completely correct - well, ever.
That much faith is not science, it's religion.
We can just run science on a sense of moral outrage and gut feeling. Yeah!
Don't look now, but this is precisely what your post advocates. Just because you happen to agree with the conclusion doesn't mean you're any less of a zealot.
Not that this is wrong, but only that it is completely ignorant of human culture, motivations, and history. You've abated the entire science of psychology in your analysis, which to me is insane to the point of mockery.
That's an interesting opinion, but you're certainly in the minority.
Amazing. Absolutely amazing. I didn't think it possible for someone to be that dumb. *Humans didn't exist in the time of dinosaurs.* The only things that survived were little mouse-like mammals and dinosaurs (which eventually birds). Anything as big as a human being starved due to lack of sun, and lack of food.
So you're purporting an evolutionary path between mice and hominids? What's your source?
Besides, 'as big as a modern human' is irrelevant, and if you're going to call me dumb you ought to at least acknowledge that.
In the case of Deep Throat, the stuff the unnamed source wasn't only not 'bullshit' but it brought down a president.
They tried revolution in the 60s. Look at the results.
Yep, we lost our women to the corporatists.
You're missing the fact that individual had established their own points of presence on these servers.
Remove 'pawn shop' and insert 'strip mall', and maybe you're a bit closer.
Go educate yourself in some fairly recent history, then come back...
They probably seized some equipment as evidence in an investigation and the numbers are just grossly over-inflated for sensationalist reasons. Seizing a couple of servers that have 10,000 customers each isn't the same thing as "ordering the sites off-line" -- it's seizing the hardware in order to protect chain of evidence and integrity of the data seized. It's still kind of a dick move, but I'm not really going to take the bitching of people who seem to be perfectly willing to watch movies but don't want to pay for them.
If yours is a legitimate business that was sitting beside these filesharers, it would be roughly the same thing. They're not being told why their site is offline, nor when to expect it to come back up. It would seem that, in order to protect the rights of the innocent bystanders that they would order the server imaged, rather than shut down and the staff gagged.
People finally figured out we only have one political party?
Some people needed this lesson, I consider it a victory that they got it.
This.
No, but I've seen countless documentaries on it blaming everyone from the CIA to Castro. How many Tienanmen Square documentaries do think are aired on China TV?
So as long as any information is divulged, your standard is met? Because that's still way too biased for my tastes. You are, however, tacitly acknowledging the point that both governments withhold information deemed prudent. Your only objection then, would be to the degree.
That's fine, but you'll have to go back up and redefine your position...
Ruby Ridge was bad. But Waco? This guy was holding hundreds hostage and attempted to burn down the building around them. The US Gov't screwed it up pretty bad, but they did have a court order that allowed them to enter. They should have just tried knocking first instead of kicking the door in.
Yeah, most people don't really know the true story either, so don't feel too bad.
The real sequence of events was that the ATF did knock first, and there was a conversation in front of the house. We'll never know who shot first, but somehow those trained government agents went from a tax stamp violation to shooting people in a matter of minutes.
Look into it. It was almost certainly worse than you realize.
Unless you are considering the Civil War, the US gov't has not killed millions.
Well that is an interesting point, but no I don't think that this would be appropriate in a discussion of recent history. Neither would the Chinese culture revolution, but I don't think you've brought that up specifically.
No, what I meant was, a ratio of three million people would net a MUCH larger sample once factored against two billion people. 'Guantanamo and Tienanmen Square' itself may indeed be 'apples and oranges' but 'Chinese oppression and US oppression' is 'apples and crab apples'.
Again, the GP was comparing Gitmo to China.
That's nice. There's a greater topic, though, with more posts in it than only the one that supports your point. Take, for example:
Twist it how you want to, but the fact remains that both countries act like assholes and US is in the same level.
That's comparing countries, of which Guantanamo would be only one isolated example. So depending on how far up the conversation you're willing to go, one of us is off topic.
Well, now, let's not go slinging around generalizations. It's all fun and games until someone loses an eye...
Do you assert that none of them deserve imprisonment? If not, how can for fairly assert that the parent is stating the opposite?
I object to the use of the term 'battlefield'. Italy, for example, was not at any time within the scope of any legal operation[1]. I think that this term romanticizes things a tad, don't you?