... and? Fredom of speech protects your ability to say what you want without reprecussions from the *government*. It doesn't protect you from all possible consequences of your speech from anyone else (nor should it).
False: Feinstein is only against spying when she is forced by circumstances to be publically against it. If this had all happened in private I *highly* doubt she'd do anything about it (except pat the NSA on the back and help their head find new consulting gigs).
Well, but the computer science major at my college required six other math classes (including two calculus classes beyond the first that I completed). For many programmers (obviously not all) that math is a complete waste of time.
The problem with all the articles like this is that they're either written by people who did take math or didn't, and in either case both believe their side is right. The article is clearly written by someone who took a lot of math so, surprise, he thinks math is good for programmers. But I took nothing past Calculus (and have never professionally used even Trigonometry), and I'm a successful programmer, so I think math is unecessary.
Until someone actually does a study on this, it's all gonna come down to "the way I did it was better"... and that's just noise.
RTFM. Thor does not become a female (and neither does Obama). The only thing that changed is who the comic book "Thor" focuses on (its now a different mortal who has Thor's hammer than it was in the past). It's like if a woman put on a cape, took the batmobile out for a spin and called herself Batman. If the comic book called "Batman" focuses on her then for all intents and purposes she "is" Batman... but it doesn't mean Bruce Wayne got a sex change.
False. In the Marvel universe Thor (as in "the character staring in the comic book called "Thor") started out as male god, but then switched to being a mortal who got ahold of Thor's hammer. I know this because the first comic book I ever read featured this incarnation of Thor.
Now another mortal has taken over the role of hammer-holder/comic-book-star. It's completely consistent with the past mythology, doesn't in any way change the past mythology (Thor doesn't "become" a girl) and nothing at all like changing Han to shoot second.
That "97%" BS argument has been debunked over and over.
Great, so you got a link to that survey of climate scientists where they all say it's a scam?
And it's repeated ad nauseum by people that should know science is not about consensus.
Of course it's not, but when idiots like you ignore science no matter what facts are presented, the only way to even try to have a dialogue is to reference an impartial source like a survey of a large numbers of scientists. Also, if 97% of scientists all believe something, they *could* all be wrong... but they probably aren't.
Yeah, it must have to do with really bored "liberals" having nothing better to do than make people poor for no reason. It couldn't possibly be that the overwheleming magjority of climate scientists all agree we're causing irreversible changes in our climate that will eventually result in thousands (or hundreds of thousands) of death and billions of dollars of property damage, or anything like that...
Sometimes people trying to help you can't unless you let them. Try finding a good therapist (which might take a few attempts) and then once you find someone you can develop trust with try working with doctors. But remember, when your perception of things is distorted, it can be easy to see malice or incompetence when honest and qualified people face a difficult problem like mental illness.
No, it didn't. Redskin has always referred to the people, due to their "red" skin.
This may be hard to grasp, but a word can have multiple meanings. Just because you think you know what a word meant to one group of people at one point in history does not mean that all peoples throughout history have used that word the same way. To many people "redskin" undoubtedly means "person with red skin, aka an injun/Indian/Native American/etc.". However, it also was used to refer to the scalps of murdered Native Americans:
"The State reward for dead Indians has been increased to $200 for every red-skin sent to Purgatory. This sum is more than the dead bodies of all the Indians east of the Red River are worth." (from http://www.esquire.com/blogs/n...)
Jus to be clear, "Purgatory" wasn't a euphism for Hell, it was a town (where evidently you could trade your scalps in for some serious cash). Our ancestors, being far more religiously-educated than we are, would not have confused Purgatory for Hell anyway (the two are very different places), and the second sentence further clarifies that they were talking about (pieces of) corpses.
"Starting with Gar Alperovitz, in his influential Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima and Potsdam (1965), "revisionist" scholars have focused on the U.S. decision to use atomic weapons against Hiroshima and Nagasaki during the last days of World War II.[2] In their belief, the nuclear bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, in effect, started the Cold War. According to Alperovitz, the bombs were not used on an already defeated Japan to win the war, but to intimidate the Soviets, signaling that the U.S. would use nuclear weapons to stop Soviet expansion, however this they failed to do.[1]"
Braves, Indians, etc. are not as offensive as Redskins (and obviously Cardinals doesn't even enter the picture). Brave or Indian means "Native American, the way your ancestors would have referred to them". Redskin means "top of scalp taken from a dead Native American to be turned in for a bounty to the US government (which paid for the murder of Native American men, women and children)".
There's a strong case to be made that the nuclear attack was NOT a science experiment, nor was it intended to (further) demoralize the Japanese. Rather, many historians would argue that the US, seeing the Cold War on the horizon, wanted to demonstrate to it's then-ally-but-clearly-future-enemy Russia just what America was capable of.
The short answer is that they've moved in to consulting. There's a whole (mildly interesting) book "Who says elephants can't jump" about their transition.
I don't think even adbusters would argue entirely against profit... they're anti-excessive profit, anti-corporation, anti-marketing, etc. but even they recognize we can't all go back to subsitence farming. The ability to profit, and subsequently trade those profits to other people for things you can't produce yourself, is necessary for any viable economic system.
While I agree in part with what you wrote the reality is none of the value of those inventions would have been realized without profit. Hell, if someone hadn't made a profit and donated it to Mendel's monastary he would have died in the street instead of inventing genetics.
Slashdot Mirror
... and? Fredom of speech protects your ability to say what you want without reprecussions from the *government*. It doesn't protect you from all possible consequences of your speech from anyone else (nor should it).
Wait, since when did ethics have anything to do with IP law?
False: Feinstein is only against spying when she is forced by circumstances to be publically against it. If this had all happened in private I *highly* doubt she'd do anything about it (except pat the NSA on the back and help their head find new consulting gigs).
Well, but the computer science major at my college required six other math classes (including two calculus classes beyond the first that I completed). For many programmers (obviously not all) that math is a complete waste of time.
The problem with all the articles like this is that they're either written by people who did take math or didn't, and in either case both believe their side is right. The article is clearly written by someone who took a lot of math so, surprise, he thinks math is good for programmers. But I took nothing past Calculus (and have never professionally used even Trigonometry), and I'm a successful programmer, so I think math is unecessary.
Until someone actually does a study on this, it's all gonna come down to "the way I did it was better" ... and that's just noise.
er RTFA
RTFM. Thor does not become a female (and neither does Obama). The only thing that changed is who the comic book "Thor" focuses on (its now a different mortal who has Thor's hammer than it was in the past). It's like if a woman put on a cape, took the batmobile out for a spin and called herself Batman. If the comic book called "Batman" focuses on her then for all intents and purposes she "is" Batman ... but it doesn't mean Bruce Wayne got a sex change.
Thor is a male god.
False. In the Marvel universe Thor (as in "the character staring in the comic book called "Thor") started out as male god, but then switched to being a mortal who got ahold of Thor's hammer. I know this because the first comic book I ever read featured this incarnation of Thor.
Now another mortal has taken over the role of hammer-holder/comic-book-star. It's completely consistent with the past mythology, doesn't in any way change the past mythology (Thor doesn't "become" a girl) and nothing at all like changing Han to shoot second.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
That "97%" BS argument has been debunked over and over.
Great, so you got a link to that survey of climate scientists where they all say it's a scam?
And it's repeated ad nauseum by people that should know science is not about consensus.
Of course it's not, but when idiots like you ignore science no matter what facts are presented, the only way to even try to have a dialogue is to reference an impartial source like a survey of a large numbers of scientists. Also, if 97% of scientists all believe something, they *could* all be wrong ... but they probably aren't.
Really? Saying (in a sarcastic fashion) that "liberals" might be motivated by something other than latent evil is trolling?
(For our very narrow definition of qualified "climate scientists") (and broad assumptions in reviewing the literature)
Yes, "narrowly defined" as in "people who study this stuff and therefore are qualified to talk about":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
I won't even respond to the rest of your "crackpot"-ishnes; it refutes itself :-)
Yeah, it must have to do with really bored "liberals" having nothing better to do than make people poor for no reason. It couldn't possibly be that the overwheleming magjority of climate scientists all agree we're causing irreversible changes in our climate that will eventually result in thousands (or hundreds of thousands) of death and billions of dollars of property damage, or anything like that ...
Of course, no one went broke overestimating the stupidity of people in large numbers.
The Lone Ranger, John Carter, and Cowboys & Aliens might disagree with you on that ... though your point still remains mostly valid.
There are no free markets in the ISP business.
Sometimes people trying to help you can't unless you let them. Try finding a good therapist (which might take a few attempts) and then once you find someone you can develop trust with try working with doctors. But remember, when your perception of things is distorted, it can be easy to see malice or incompetence when honest and qualified people face a difficult problem like mental illness.
No, it didn't.
Redskin has always referred to the people, due to their "red" skin.
This may be hard to grasp, but a word can have multiple meanings. Just because you think you know what a word meant to one group of people at one point in history does not mean that all peoples throughout history have used that word the same way. To many people "redskin" undoubtedly means "person with red skin, aka an injun/Indian/Native American/etc.". However, it also was used to refer to the scalps of murdered Native Americans:
"The State reward for dead Indians has been increased to $200 for every red-skin sent to Purgatory. This sum is more than the dead bodies of all the Indians east of the Red River are worth."
(from http://www.esquire.com/blogs/n...)
Jus to be clear, "Purgatory" wasn't a euphism for Hell, it was a town (where evidently you could trade your scalps in for some serious cash). Our ancestors, being far more religiously-educated than we are, would not have confused Purgatory for Hell anyway (the two are very different places), and the second sentence further clarifies that they were talking about (pieces of) corpses.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...
"Starting with Gar Alperovitz, in his influential Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima and Potsdam (1965), "revisionist" scholars have focused on the U.S. decision to use atomic weapons against Hiroshima and Nagasaki during the last days of World War II.[2] In their belief, the nuclear bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, in effect, started the Cold War. According to Alperovitz, the bombs were not used on an already defeated Japan to win the war, but to intimidate the Soviets, signaling that the U.S. would use nuclear weapons to stop Soviet expansion, however this they failed to do.[1]"
(You can follow the references for more info.)
Braves, Indians, etc. are not as offensive as Redskins (and obviously Cardinals doesn't even enter the picture). Brave or Indian means "Native American, the way your ancestors would have referred to them". Redskin means "top of scalp taken from a dead Native American to be turned in for a bounty to the US government (which paid for the murder of Native American men, women and children)".
Welcome to US history: Hiroshima was *far* from the first mass murder initiated by the American government.
There's a strong case to be made that the nuclear attack was NOT a science experiment, nor was it intended to (further) demoralize the Japanese. Rather, many historians would argue that the US, seeing the Cold War on the horizon, wanted to demonstrate to it's then-ally-but-clearly-future-enemy Russia just what America was capable of.
The short answer is that they've moved in to consulting. There's a whole (mildly interesting) book "Who says elephants can't jump" about their transition.
I don't think even adbusters would argue entirely against profit ... they're anti-excessive profit, anti-corporation, anti-marketing, etc. but even they recognize we can't all go back to subsitence farming. The ability to profit, and subsequently trade those profits to other people for things you can't produce yourself, is necessary for any viable economic system.
While I agree in part with what you wrote the reality is none of the value of those inventions would have been realized without profit. Hell, if someone hadn't made a profit and donated it to Mendel's monastary he would have died in the street instead of inventing genetics.
Wish I had mod points; that joke is rapidly getting old, but I still thought it was funny here.