No, why is most important. If the why was unimportant, people who have been responsible for many thousands of deaths, e.g., Bush and Obama, would be locked up as dangerous individuals. Instead we lock up people or even execute them when they kill only one person. The explanation clearly resides in the "why". In the example of political leaders, the why is because they have power and can do it with impunity. The niceties of the legal system are only there for the rest of us.
In everything, the "why" is the MOST important part. For example, if "why" is not important, why haven't we imprisoned every person who ever killed anyone? Do that, and half the army would go away. Or what about imprisoning the people responsible for killing? Obama and Bush are certainly responsible for the deaths of many people, the reason they aren't in jail is because of the "why". Indeed, everyone who pays taxes in America has blood on their hands for financially enabling all the murder and mayhem our country has perpetrated in the last decade, yet we will go to jail only if we do NOT continue paying for murder. Like it or not, the why is the most important part in our system.
I haven't done extensive reading on this, in fact, this is the first time I've heard of the incident amazingly enough. But I would point out that one of the people charged with masterminding the plan is the one who said the "poor guy" was an accomplice. Just saying the source is rather suspect and it is possible that "poor guy" really was.
With respect to the State Secrets Doctrine, Obama has been using that successfully to prevent court cases dealing with torture and the complicity of American companies (FN1). As for the State Secrets Doctrine getting overturned, it's hardly likely even now that we know for a fact that the Supreme Court case which cemented its position was based solely on a government lie to avoid paying compensation to some engineers who died in a plane crash (FN2) yet knowing this, has in no way has diminished its power.
Although the state secrets privilege has existed in some form since the early 19th century, its modern use, and the rules governing its invocation, derive from the landmark Supreme Court case United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1 (1953). In Reynolds, the widows of three civilians who died in the crash of a military plane in Georgia filed a wrongful death action against the government. In response to their request for the accident report, the government insisted that the report could not be disclosed because it contained information about secret military equipment that was being tested aboard the aircraft during the fatal flight. When the accident report was finally declassified in 2004, it contained no details whatsoever about secret equipment. The government's true motivation in asserting the state secrets privilege was to cover up its own negligence.
What is truly disconcerting was that the Bush administration didn't really pursue this. It was only once Obama took office that Drake's nightmare began.
Sorry, but not all people are cut out for higher education.
"There is definitely some devaluing of the college degree going on," says Eric A. Hanushek, an education economist at the Hoover Institution, and that gives the master's extra signaling power. "We are going deeper into the pool of high school graduates for college attendance," making a bachelor's no longer an adequate screening measure of achievement for employers.
There are lots of people who can be productive without over-educating the entire population. This isn't elitism -- it's a fact that not every person is appropriate for school and it would be a good thing if those people could make a productive living. This is where the true elitism lays -- that if you don't get a higher education, well, fuck you, you're a stupid redneck. That's not a good situation for those people and it is very bad for America.
Since the 90s we've been feed a line about globalization and free trade, one which I used to believe in, that manufacturing jobs moving out of the US would be replaced with more valuable knowledge jobs at home, and that free trade would foster peace and prosperity throughout the world. Sort of the seeds of The Federation.
Something else is going on. All those knowledge based jobs are also being offshored. And now we hear that the slave labor wages paid to workers offshore, isn't cheap enough. We've been at war for a decade (it's our stupid decisions that make it so, but still, the world is hardly at peace). In our own country, workers try to destroy unions for hard to understand reasons -- maybe they feel everyone should suffer equally rather than realizing they've just sold themselves out.
I don't see what we got out of globalization. A small few became fabulously wealthy, but as a nation, we've gotten jack, and now even those overseas who benefitted are getting the shaft.
I don't know what the solution is honestly, but what we have now is not it.
Patent hoards as protection works between companies that actually make something because of the concept of mutually assured destruction.
Patent hoards do not protect against the true patent troll because the PT has no product, no business, no customers -- just an empty office in the Eastern District of TX and a lawyer in NY City. If the patent troll loses the case, they lose the money invested in that case, but their business (suing innovators) is unharmed and unhindered.
Or maybe you can just point us to a seller of Saddam Husein's WMDs.
As a side note, a lack of evidence for something is usually not considered evidence for it, unless you're a neo-con looking for secret soviet weapons (those pesky Soviets were so good at hiding them, lack of evidence was used as proof of existence -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Team_B ).
Anyway, you could have a good career in politics if you so choose.
Must depend on where you are. Here in the Pacific NW, diesel is only slightly more expensive than regular(~3.80), and equivalent to the price of super (~4.05).
All reliability figures are based upon the assumption that the drives will be powered up and in use for most of a working day. However, if you only power up a drive when you need to store or retrieve data - data that is written only for archival purposes - then the drive could last a life-time.
Has anyone done any studies of the effects of turning on and off repeatedly? Turning things on is a not infrequent cause of failure.
In addition to leaving it at home, write an app that will make a text or two to your most frequently texted contacts and also perform a few innocuous internet searches. Automated outgoing phone calls might be more difficult because of the need for natural conversation. This way, not only is the phone on, you are actively using it, or so it seems. Problem is keeping the app hidden well enough that it won't be found on the phone.
When carbon dioxide dissolves in this ocean, carbonic acid is formed. This leads to higher acidity, mainly near the surface, which has been proven to inhibit shell growth in marine animals and is suspected as a cause of reproductive disorders in some fish. ...
The oceans currently absorb about a third of human-created CO2 emissions, roughly 22 million tons a day. Projections based on these numbers show that by the end of this century, continued emissions could reduce ocean pH by another 0.5 units. Shell-forming animals including corals, oysters, shrimp, lobster, many planktonic organisms, and even some fish species could be gravely affected.
This is a good way to go, even though society will denigrate it.
But think about how stupid our society is -- it says that the thing to do when people do what they naturally will do (have sex), is to break up and destroy a family. That's what we call mature? Even though kids from broken homes do worse on almost every measure?
Your method of recognizing the pleasure and inevitability of sex is far more mature.
It doesn't have so much with being stronger. Our closest relatives (Bonobos) have sex all the time for bonding purposes and to lessen internal strife. We aren't Elk.
More interestingly, studies on ejaculate have shown that the first spurts contain chemicals which protect sperm from the spermicide released in the last spurts:
Rather than men competing with one another to win "entrance" to a coy female looking for the best mate, the book argues that lots of men had sex with the same woman and let their sperm duke it out in the vaginal canal. Even to this day, the initial spurt of human ejaculate contains chemicals that "protect the sperm from chemicals in the later spurts of other men's ejaculate. These final spurts contain a spermicidal substance that slows the advances of any latecomers" (page 228).
Throw in a mushroom headed penis quite effective at clearing out previous ejaculate with a sperm production of massive proportions compared to harem keeping animals who don't have to compete with other sperm, and the whole idea of extrapolating human sexuality from that of other kinds of animals is quite questionable.
Your concept of evolution is individualistic while evolution may be much more "concerned" with a species rather than an individual. You also put human sexual practices in line with distant relatives like Elk rather than nearer relatives like Bonobos.
Think about the advantages a child would have multiple fathers. Not possible? In many pre-agricultural societies, there was the concept of partable parenthood which meant that any child had multiple biological fathers, which even if a misunderstanding of biology, is very adaptive. If something happens to one dad, the other feels obliged to step in.
That's what they'd have you believe, but the truth seems far from that up to the point of the development of agriculture. This book is a very interesting read:
Ryan and Jetha show that our ancestors lived in egalitarian groups that shared food, child care, and often, sexual partners. Weaving together convergent, often overlooked evidence from anthropology, archeology, primatology, anatomy, and psychosexuality, the authors show how far from human nature sexual monogamy really is. They expose the ancient roots of human sexuality while pointing toward a more optimistic future illuminated by our innate capacities for love, cooperation, and generosity.
There's anti-science out there, but there's also budget constraints. For example, we have important work to do blowing up people in the middle east and we can't afford to use drones to blow up innocents and advance science. So science has to go.
Hey man, thanks for tossing out the Model-M I bought for $5 at a junk store (and thanks to the proprietor who didn't know what he had and just stacked it with the rest of the $5 keyboards).
Slashdot Mirror
No, why is most important. If the why was unimportant, people who have been responsible for many thousands of deaths, e.g., Bush and Obama, would be locked up as dangerous individuals. Instead we lock up people or even execute them when they kill only one person. The explanation clearly resides in the "why". In the example of political leaders, the why is because they have power and can do it with impunity. The niceties of the legal system are only there for the rest of us.
In everything, the "why" is the MOST important part. For example, if "why" is not important, why haven't we imprisoned every person who ever killed anyone? Do that, and half the army would go away. Or what about imprisoning the people responsible for killing? Obama and Bush are certainly responsible for the deaths of many people, the reason they aren't in jail is because of the "why". Indeed, everyone who pays taxes in America has blood on their hands for financially enabling all the murder and mayhem our country has perpetrated in the last decade, yet we will go to jail only if we do NOT continue paying for murder. Like it or not, the why is the most important part in our system.
I haven't done extensive reading on this, in fact, this is the first time I've heard of the incident amazingly enough. But I would point out that one of the people charged with masterminding the plan is the one who said the "poor guy" was an accomplice. Just saying the source is rather suspect and it is possible that "poor guy" really was.
FN1: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/09/08/obama
FN2: http://www.aclu.org/national-security/background-state-secrets-privilege
Not just zero, Boeing has a negative federal tax rate (which hopefully rounds up to zero tax at least, rather than a "refund"): http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2011/06/03/boeing-asks-congress-to-lower-corporate-tax-rates-after-paying-no-corporate-taxes-for-three-years
What is truly disconcerting was that the Bush administration didn't really pursue this. It was only once Obama took office that Drake's nightmare began.
Glen Greenwald's analysis on this topic is quite interesting: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/07/30/whistleblowers/index.html
I wish there was an "insightfully funny" mod. That rocks.
Sorry, but not all people are cut out for higher education.
There are lots of people who can be productive without over-educating the entire population. This isn't elitism -- it's a fact that not every person is appropriate for school and it would be a good thing if those people could make a productive living. This is where the true elitism lays -- that if you don't get a higher education, well, fuck you, you're a stupid redneck. That's not a good situation for those people and it is very bad for America.
Since the 90s we've been feed a line about globalization and free trade, one which I used to believe in, that manufacturing jobs moving out of the US would be replaced with more valuable knowledge jobs at home, and that free trade would foster peace and prosperity throughout the world. Sort of the seeds of The Federation.
Something else is going on. All those knowledge based jobs are also being offshored. And now we hear that the slave labor wages paid to workers offshore, isn't cheap enough. We've been at war for a decade (it's our stupid decisions that make it so, but still, the world is hardly at peace). In our own country, workers try to destroy unions for hard to understand reasons -- maybe they feel everyone should suffer equally rather than realizing they've just sold themselves out.
I don't see what we got out of globalization. A small few became fabulously wealthy, but as a nation, we've gotten jack, and now even those overseas who benefitted are getting the shaft.
I don't know what the solution is honestly, but what we have now is not it.
Patent hoards as protection works between companies that actually make something because of the concept of mutually assured destruction.
Patent hoards do not protect against the true patent troll because the PT has no product, no business, no customers -- just an empty office in the Eastern District of TX and a lawyer in NY City. If the patent troll loses the case, they lose the money invested in that case, but their business (suing innovators) is unharmed and unhindered.
This American Life has a really nice show on the Patent Troll: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/441/when-patents-attack
Or maybe you can just point us to a seller of Saddam Husein's WMDs.
As a side note, a lack of evidence for something is usually not considered evidence for it, unless you're a neo-con looking for secret soviet weapons (those pesky Soviets were so good at hiding them, lack of evidence was used as proof of existence -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Team_B ).
Anyway, you could have a good career in politics if you so choose.
Ahh, just like the "make no mistake" prelude popularized by Bush.
Must depend on where you are. Here in the Pacific NW, diesel is only slightly more expensive than regular(~3.80), and equivalent to the price of super (~4.05).
Has anyone done any studies of the effects of turning on and off repeatedly? Turning things on is a not infrequent cause of failure.
In addition to leaving it at home, write an app that will make a text or two to your most frequently texted contacts and also perform a few innocuous internet searches. Automated outgoing phone calls might be more difficult because of the need for natural conversation. This way, not only is the phone on, you are actively using it, or so it seems. Problem is keeping the app hidden well enough that it won't be found on the phone.
http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/critical-issues-ocean-acidification/
This is a good way to go, even though society will denigrate it.
But think about how stupid our society is -- it says that the thing to do when people do what they naturally will do (have sex), is to break up and destroy a family. That's what we call mature? Even though kids from broken homes do worse on almost every measure?
Your method of recognizing the pleasure and inevitability of sex is far more mature.
And those who send their kids to school even if not on welfare.
More interestingly, studies on ejaculate have shown that the first spurts contain chemicals which protect sperm from the spermicide released in the last spurts:
Throw in a mushroom headed penis quite effective at clearing out previous ejaculate with a sperm production of massive proportions compared to harem keeping animals who don't have to compete with other sperm, and the whole idea of extrapolating human sexuality from that of other kinds of animals is quite questionable.
Your concept of evolution is individualistic while evolution may be much more "concerned" with a species rather than an individual. You also put human sexual practices in line with distant relatives like Elk rather than nearer relatives like Bonobos.
Think about the advantages a child would have multiple fathers. Not possible? In many pre-agricultural societies, there was the concept of partable parenthood which meant that any child had multiple biological fathers, which even if a misunderstanding of biology, is very adaptive. If something happens to one dad, the other feels obliged to step in.
Here's an example:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-11/uom-mfp111010.php
http://www.sexatdawn.com/
Right -- so we have to spend our money helping them accomplish that because why?
There's anti-science out there, but there's also budget constraints. For example, we have important work to do blowing up people in the middle east and we can't afford to use drones to blow up innocents and advance science. So science has to go.
Hey man, thanks for tossing out the Model-M I bought for $5 at a junk store (and thanks to the proprietor who didn't know what he had and just stacked it with the rest of the $5 keyboards).
Cap't Ron's Warning: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyG0G96UB6k