Actually I like talking to artists who actually look at gems instead of just seeing what someone told them. CZ has a reputation of cheapness, so a lot of people don't like it, but to my eyes it looks better than diamonds. I don't feel I have enough experience to be a sure judge though, so that is why I asked. I've thought of having a ring with diamonds/ CZ mixed, that way I can impress people who only care that it is diamond, while leaving them wondering why it looks better than their own diamond rings.
I'm not sure how you even go about measuring bias.
Statements can fall (roughly) into three categories:
1) Statements that are well supported by facts.
2) Statements that are poorly supported, thus contain quite a bit of uncertainty.
3) Statements that are preferences (ie, I prefer lower taxes and a weaker safety net).
You can measure bias on all of these. The first is easy, because a biased viewpoint is outright wrong:
1 example) "Rich people pay no taxes" or "we could get rid of the national debt if we got rid of welfare" (both wrong).
When there is quite a bit of uncertainty, biased people tend to state things as fact:
2 example) "The treaty will prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons" "The treaty guarantees Iran will get nuclear weapons."
Often people who utter #3 type statements state their preferences as fact:
3 example) "GMOs hurt the world" or "taxes are too high."
(Most political disputes actually fall into category #3, believe it or not. Things like gay marriage, abortion, allowing immigrants, allowing refugees......these are framed as questions of "right" or "wrong;" but mostly they are preferences. Even a topic like AGW, the political question is, "what should we do about it?" and there are a huge range of options even if we could agree on what the goal is).
I'm sympathetic to arguments that classified rules are too strict, but Hillary shouldn't get special treatment. Elites getting special treatment is how we get unfair rules in the first place.
Remember when there was zero evidence of that happening or even being remotely possible? Remember when they quietly dropped it when the truth started coming out?
Actually I didn't know that part happened, so thanks for pointing it out.
Not "trust us", US intelligence has enumerate exactly how it was done, by whom, where and when. The current hacker going by Guccifer 2.0 was pretending to be Romanian, but when faced with a translator, was found to be Russian.
Yeah, you know how US Intel has been known to lie, both on purpose and also on accident? I have absolutely no reason to believe them when they say 'trust us', especially when they are talking about starting a cyberwar.
It's not even clear Russia did anything.
And the American electoral system looks chaotic enough on its own. It's the people running who make it look bad, not foreign hackers.
Maybe if they had executed Hirohito, the Japanese would have been forgiven for their war crimes more than they are now.
Different people were in charge of the different regions after the war, so you shouldn't expect the treatment to be the same. Japan was oppressed in different ways (and many Japanese still consider themselves to be a vassal state).
Here's what's been whitewashed (by both the Germans and the Americans):
Anti-Jewish sentiment in Germany was enormous before Hitler. Hitler wasn't some propaganda monster, he merely tapped into a current of hate that already existed. The hate that existed against Jews in Germany (and Austria) is disgusting. Look at some of the things Wagner said about Mendelssohn as one small example. Mahler was surrounded by hate for a decade merely because of his ancestry.
The Nuremberg show trials were show trials exactly for that reason: so we could blame it all on the leaders, and get over hating each other.
Freedom of speech is a necessary pre-requisite for freedom, so it's worth mentioning:
The reason Germany has such strict anti-speech laws is actually a tool of oppression from the allies. They didn't want to have another uprising like Hitler leading into World War 3 (also part of the reason the US has military bases in Germany), so they took measures to ensure Hitler's specific type of propaganda would be oppressed.
So Germany is not an example to the world here, but neither were the laws intended to be.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually I like talking to artists who actually look at gems instead of just seeing what someone told them. CZ has a reputation of cheapness, so a lot of people don't like it, but to my eyes it looks better than diamonds. I don't feel I have enough experience to be a sure judge though, so that is why I asked. I've thought of having a ring with diamonds/ CZ mixed, that way I can impress people who only care that it is diamond, while leaving them wondering why it looks better than their own diamond rings.
Only the Republicans have guns :)
The flash is more noticeable but it doesn't have more multicoloured fire and flash
Wait, so what you are saying is that diamonds are just as colorful as CZ, but it's more noticeable with CZ?
And some of them I know are voting for the first time in their lives.
I'm not sure how you even go about measuring bias.
Statements can fall (roughly) into three categories:
1) Statements that are well supported by facts.
2) Statements that are poorly supported, thus contain quite a bit of uncertainty.
3) Statements that are preferences (ie, I prefer lower taxes and a weaker safety net).
You can measure bias on all of these. The first is easy, because a biased viewpoint is outright wrong:
1 example) "Rich people pay no taxes" or "we could get rid of the national debt if we got rid of welfare" (both wrong).
When there is quite a bit of uncertainty, biased people tend to state things as fact:
2 example) "The treaty will prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons" "The treaty guarantees Iran will get nuclear weapons."
Often people who utter #3 type statements state their preferences as fact:
3 example) "GMOs hurt the world" or "taxes are too high."
(Most political disputes actually fall into category #3, believe it or not. Things like gay marriage, abortion, allowing immigrants, allowing refugees......these are framed as questions of "right" or "wrong;" but mostly they are preferences. Even a topic like AGW, the political question is, "what should we do about it?" and there are a huge range of options even if we could agree on what the goal is).
Cubic zirconia isn't more shiny, it's more sparkly and multi-colored. Diamonds have a more pure glow.
More slashdot users will vote for Trump than Hillary
Not all of us who are disgusted with Hillary are voting for Trump, or a lot of us will vote for Hillary.
Clinton wasn't an "elite" but Secretary of State
You're an idiot.
Kristian Saucier went to jail for much less than that: taking selfies in a restricted area. Didn't even send them to anyone.
I'm sympathetic to arguments that classified rules are too strict, but Hillary shouldn't get special treatment. Elites getting special treatment is how we get unfair rules in the first place.
Remember when there was zero evidence of that happening or even being remotely possible? Remember when they quietly dropped it when the truth started coming out?
Actually I didn't know that part happened, so thanks for pointing it out.
Not "trust us", US intelligence has enumerate exactly how it was done, by whom, where and when. The current hacker going by Guccifer 2.0 was pretending to be Romanian, but when faced with a translator, was found to be Russian.
That's not much.
Your words echo Trumpsky's denials but US Intelligence service says otherwise: http://www.theverge.com/2016/1...
Yeah, you know how US Intel has been known to lie, both on purpose and also on accident? I have absolutely no reason to believe them when they say 'trust us', especially when they are talking about starting a cyberwar.
Probably not another way.
Just gotta get people to vote for 'em.
Um.........
I wish some time we could get competent people in government.
It's not even clear Russia did anything.
And the American electoral system looks chaotic enough on its own. It's the people running who make it look bad, not foreign hackers.
Maybe if they had executed Hirohito, the Japanese would have been forgiven for their war crimes more than they are now.
Different people were in charge of the different regions after the war, so you shouldn't expect the treatment to be the same. Japan was oppressed in different ways (and many Japanese still consider themselves to be a vassal state).
It always was a minority
Why on earth do you think it was minority? Defend yourself. In the 1700s, Jews were listed with animals in inventories and such.
I for my part don't know anyone who has resentments against Jews
Good, that's good.
Anti-Jewish sentiment in Germany was enormous before Hitler. That is not true.
Oh, yes it is. The anti-Jewishness goes back far.
Here's what's been whitewashed (by both the Germans and the Americans):
Anti-Jewish sentiment in Germany was enormous before Hitler. Hitler wasn't some propaganda monster, he merely tapped into a current of hate that already existed. The hate that existed against Jews in Germany (and Austria) is disgusting. Look at some of the things Wagner said about Mendelssohn as one small example. Mahler was surrounded by hate for a decade merely because of his ancestry.
The Nuremberg show trials were show trials exactly for that reason: so we could blame it all on the leaders, and get over hating each other.
It could basically be a tractor-trailer trailer with an engine, I guess.
tries to ... pretend that Hitler, and everything associated with him, never existed
Except that's not true.
Freedom of speech is a necessary pre-requisite for freedom, so it's worth mentioning:
The reason Germany has such strict anti-speech laws is actually a tool of oppression from the allies. They didn't want to have another uprising like Hitler leading into World War 3 (also part of the reason the US has military bases in Germany), so they took measures to ensure Hitler's specific type of propaganda would be oppressed.
So Germany is not an example to the world here, but neither were the laws intended to be.
Fortunately it can be written in the margin of this book.
Let's also keep in mind, we don't have a collection of the contemporary saying of .... Genghis Khan-era Mongols.
Yes we do, you can buy it yourself today.