A libertarian is going to see that the Constitution provides for a separation of Church and State, and therefore a government entity (public schools) should not be teaching faith in a specific Christian ideology.
I disagree. A good libertarian should recognize that the Congress has no authority to pass laws regarding the establishment of religion. Our country should be having 50 separate debates on the topic of church-state relationship.
I also wonder if I have to start worrying about other sites blocking American users simply out of fear & safety from the United States MPAA/RIAA run court system?
That would potentially be fantastic. If we can make Congress understand that excessive copyright and patent regimes put the U.S. at a technological / competitive disadvantage, that's part of the war in getting change.
Of course, Congress might be just as likely to respond in some insane, drunken, counter-productive way as well, which is why I used the word "problematic" above.
There are some organizations whose only credibility comes from the expertise of the non-executive staff. Execs can make claims about what actions their organization will take, but they're not the only important opinions in matters of truth.
The patent outlines the process, which may someday allow researchers to accurately predict the behavior of observed subjects.
Presumably it will only allow some researcher to predict behavior. Researchers who lack the money or clout to license the patent won't have the legal ability to make predictions using this technology.
'It's a bit hard to believe that all the customers who shop at the world's largest retailer want censored versions of music, though, but that's what they get
I doubt all customers want any particular product or service. The more important question is whether or not enough want this product in order for it to be worth offering.
Speaking for myself, I do want this service. The absence of crude songs is completely irrelevant to me because I wouldn't want them anyway. Your mileage may vary, of course.
Congress' approval ratings are tied with the historical low. Do they even know why?
I'm a conservative and typically voted Republican, and even *I* wanted the Dems to come into power to repair the damage of Bush's administration. But on any issue involving something the DoD / DoE marks as classified, they just shrug and say, "Bush's people called it classified. I guess we can't exercise oversight after all."
I know this post will likely cost me some karma. I just wish I could spend *all* my karma on it and actually get my congressmen and senators to DO THEIR FSCKING JOBS and stop this crap.
Is it possible for browsers to render everything *else* on a page while awaiting the ads to be served?
I realize this means performing some speculative page layout that may need to be re-done when the dimensions of the ads are served. But it sure would beat waiting tens of seconds to see the page's real content.
It follows that if Adblock was not available, I would ignore ads and not click on them. If they are particularly irritating, I would complain to the webmaster, so Adblock actually does them a favor.
I think you may be mistaken on this point. At least speaking for myself, even though I hate excessive ads I more-then-never click on ones that grab my attention. For example, Thinkgeek.com. Although I would rather see no ads, the truth is that once in a blue moon I actually respond to one that I was unable to elude.
But I've also had some frustration with Netflix's queue system as well. It apparently tops out at 500 entries. I've been in the habit of enqueuing a movie whenever I hear about one that I'd like to see eventually, including those I see the trailers for on Apple's website.
Now I can no longer use the queue that way because I've gotten to about 500 entries. Now I have to check my queue and prune it before I can add a handful of new movies.
Even worse, sometimes I click the link to Add a new movie to my queue, but forget to read the page that brings me to, where I'm told the enqueue didn't happen because I've hit my queue limit. That's frustrating because (a) I end up not seeing the movie I had hoped to, because the queue was my main means of remembering to watch it, and (b) couldn't they have just replaced the "Add" button on the web page with a clear warning that I need to remove another queue entry before I can add?
The thing to keep in mind here is what Creationists do when they come up with this "bazillion to one against x happening" claim is that they're usually trying to argue for the occurence of an entire novel feature out of some base system (ie. bacteria from an organic soup).
But don't macro-evolutionists (for lack of a better term) also rely on statistical arguments whose underlying models are hard to validate? I think they generally see that micro-evolution works in the lab, and then assume that enough micro-evolutionary events have occurred to yield the macro-evolutionary results they believe to be recorded in natural history (i.e. the fossil record).
I'm not saying the macro-evolutionists are wrong, just that they too seem to be question begging when it comes to probabilities that are hard to really validate.
It's much worse than that. Like all panspermia advocates, and like a good many Creationists, they essentially crib the "odds" argument.
This depresses me. As an unwilling agnostic, I've tried hard to weigh the evidence for/against the various Creationist accounts. When advocates of Creationism employ crappy mathematical arguments, it slows down my investigation considerably.
Suppose that a breathalyser was subjected to lots and lots of testing, and was shown that 99.999% of the time, it got a correct answer within +/-20% of the person's actual blood alcohol level.
Then do we really need to know whether it's filled with good source code, bad source code, or yarn? I mean, we accept this kind of opacity for lots of kinds of machine learning systems that can be trained to be very good predictors for their data sets.
The only real argument against what I'm saying is some other poster's point about acetone registering as alcohol. That kind of thing might be hard to notice unless you can review the design and assumptions built into such a device.
My gut reaction is that Vista's poor reception helped make this happen. Partly because of poor customer demand, and partly because it forced Lenovo and Dell to look elsewhere for product differentiation.
There are two different meanings for the word "respect". Women should certainly be respected as in, not treated condescendingly, not being treated as a potential mate more than as a coworker, etc.
But "respect" as in, "I respect his/her coding skills." or "I respect the way he/she can motivate his/her underlings." must be earned, regardless of one's sex.
Is it some left-over effect from when the Earth was formed, and thus subject to forever growing colder? Or is it from some effect that will keep on replenishing the heat?
Also, does anything bad happen if we accelerate the cooling of the core?
Slashdot Mirror
I disagree. A good libertarian should recognize that the Congress has no authority to pass laws regarding the establishment of religion. Our country should be having 50 separate debates on the topic of church-state relationship.
So that's when the Wow starts!
I guess you haven't heard...
I totally agree. For example, look at the cross-purposes of those working on DRM vs. those working on every other part of the OS.
That would potentially be fantastic. If we can make Congress understand that excessive copyright and patent regimes put the U.S. at a technological / competitive disadvantage, that's part of the war in getting change.
Of course, Congress might be just as likely to respond in some insane, drunken, counter-productive way as well, which is why I used the word "problematic" above.
Like the heads of intelligence agencies during the lead up to Iraq? Or Christy Todd Whitman's claims about the safety of the WTC site after 9/11?
There are some organizations whose only credibility comes from the expertise of the non-executive staff. Execs can make claims about what actions their organization will take, but they're not the only important opinions in matters of truth.
Neither can an official spokesman, unless he surveys every member of the organization and confirms that each agrees with the statement.
An official spokesperson typically only speaks for the executives. To act otherwise is to give legs to the lie that corporations are persons.
Presumably it will only allow some researcher to predict behavior. Researchers who lack the money or clout to license the patent won't have the legal ability to make predictions using this technology.
I hate government patents.
I doubt all customers want any particular product or service. The more important question is whether or not enough want this product in order for it to be worth offering.
Speaking for myself, I do want this service. The absence of crude songs is completely irrelevant to me because I wouldn't want them anyway. Your mileage may vary, of course.
Congress' approval ratings are tied with the historical low. Do they even know why?
I'm a conservative and typically voted Republican, and even *I* wanted the Dems to come into power to repair the damage of Bush's administration. But on any issue involving something the DoD / DoE marks as classified, they just shrug and say, "Bush's people called it classified. I guess we can't exercise oversight after all."
I know this post will likely cost me some karma. I just wish I could spend *all* my karma on it and actually get my congressmen and senators to DO THEIR FSCKING JOBS and stop this crap.
Is it possible for browsers to render everything *else* on a page while awaiting the ads to be served?
I realize this means performing some speculative page layout that may need to be re-done when the dimensions of the ads are served. But it sure would beat waiting tens of seconds to see the page's real content.
I think you may be mistaken on this point. At least speaking for myself, even though I hate excessive ads I more-then-never click on ones that grab my attention. For example, Thinkgeek.com. Although I would rather see no ads, the truth is that once in a blue moon I actually respond to one that I was unable to elude.
What, you mean their new uptime numbers after publicly urinating on a large group of very, very Internet-savvy programmers? :)
But I've also had some frustration with Netflix's queue system as well. It apparently tops out at 500 entries. I've been in the habit of enqueuing a movie whenever I hear about one that I'd like to see eventually, including those I see the trailers for on Apple's website.
Now I can no longer use the queue that way because I've gotten to about 500 entries. Now I have to check my queue and prune it before I can add a handful of new movies.
Even worse, sometimes I click the link to Add a new movie to my queue, but forget to read the page that brings me to, where I'm told the enqueue didn't happen because I've hit my queue limit. That's frustrating because (a) I end up not seeing the movie I had hoped to, because the queue was my main means of remembering to watch it, and (b) couldn't they have just replaced the "Add" button on the web page with a clear warning that I need to remove another queue entry before I can add?
But don't macro-evolutionists (for lack of a better term) also rely on statistical arguments whose underlying models are hard to validate? I think they generally see that micro-evolution works in the lab, and then assume that enough micro-evolutionary events have occurred to yield the macro-evolutionary results they believe to be recorded in natural history (i.e. the fossil record).
I'm not saying the macro-evolutionists are wrong, just that they too seem to be question begging when it comes to probabilities that are hard to really validate.
This depresses me. As an unwilling agnostic, I've tried hard to weigh the evidence for/against the various Creationist accounts. When advocates of Creationism employ crappy mathematical arguments, it slows down my investigation considerably.
You had me when you clicked OK.
Suppose that a breathalyser was subjected to lots and lots of testing, and was shown that 99.999% of the time, it got a correct answer within +/-20% of the person's actual blood alcohol level.
Then do we really need to know whether it's filled with good source code, bad source code, or yarn? I mean, we accept this kind of opacity for lots of kinds of machine learning systems that can be trained to be very good predictors for their data sets.
The only real argument against what I'm saying is some other poster's point about acetone registering as alcohol. That kind of thing might be hard to notice unless you can review the design and assumptions built into such a device.
If measured in terms of number of lines of code written, absolutely ;)
I don't do anything about it. I'm. A. Ninja!
My gut reaction is that Vista's poor reception helped make this happen. Partly because of poor customer demand, and partly because it forced Lenovo and Dell to look elsewhere for product differentiation.
Am I right?
There are two different meanings for the word "respect". Women should certainly be respected as in, not treated condescendingly, not being treated as a potential mate more than as a coworker, etc.
But "respect" as in, "I respect his/her coding skills." or "I respect the way he/she can motivate his/her underlings." must be earned, regardless of one's sex.
This isn't meant as a troll, but:
Maybe Christianity is true, and the universe really is just anthropocentric?
Is it some left-over effect from when the Earth was formed, and thus subject to forever growing colder? Or is it from some effect that will keep on replenishing the heat?
Also, does anything bad happen if we accelerate the cooling of the core?
If anyone brags about banging Charlene, I'm outt'a here.