Sure, flamebait, why not. These are some of the best definitions of the words as our liberal friends know them. When the truth sounds like flamebait, you're really in trouble...
"Why is murder a state issue, and not a federal one?"
Because states are the primary unit of government. There is no fundamental Constitutional right to life. The fundamental Constitutional right is to not have your life taken from you by government without due process.
The only issues that are federal (should be) those that have a specific reason to be. Interstate commerce, lawsuits between states, international matters, etc.
How can the submitter equate abortion as birth control with execution of serial killers? You shot it down pretty well.
I think the main problem with the abortion debate is that Roe v Wade set up one place (the Supreme Court) where there's a knock-down, drag-out, winner-take-all battle to the death where one side or the other prevails.
I don't see why it's a federal issue at all. Murder isn't. Back the Feds out of the debate, and the states can decide how they want to handle it. The ones who do it best will become models.
There aren't any unknown biases involving mathematical theorems and statements. They're either true or they're not; they can be checked by anybody who reads the papers.
The same isn't true for science (or indeed journalism), where the biases of a source can affect the information presented, and should be investigated.
On 19 June, 2005, Oregon's Mail Tribune reported that in a recent survey of 419 media outlets, nearly one-fourth of editors said they have banned the use of anonymous sources entirely -- a good start. Yet most members of the press still claim they cannot manage their self-appointed duty as the "watchdog of government" without using anonymous sources.
One must ask, then, how the scientific community manages so well using only verifiable sources? No scientific journal editor would even consider allowing a reference to an anonymous source.
Thomas Henry Huxley defined science as "nothing but trained and organized common sense." Scientific method might be similarly summarized as simply "telling the truth." Science makes rigorous efforts to prevent self-interest, conscious or unconscious, from distorting the truth. In studies testing new medications, neither the physician giving the drug nor the recipient of the drug know whether the medicament being evaluated or a placebo is being given. These double-blind studies prevent distortion resulting from bias.
Richard Feynman wrote of "learning how not to fool ourselves" and of having "utter scientific integrity" as being part of "our responsibility as scientists." Scientists are trained to understand how deceptively easy it is to believe what they want to believe and to recognize that they must constantly be on guard against allowing this form of bias to compromise the integrity of their work.
How much a given field of knowledge values the truth can be measured by the attention it gives to methods attempting to preserve the truth.
The steady stream of high-profile scandals in the mass media over the past several years -- ranging from forged documents to trying to pass off fiction as news -- indicates that media methods need some serious scrutiny. First, consider my title, Anonymous sources: A license to lie. I don't mean to imply that reporters lie every time they cite an unidentified source. But consider: an anonymous source could mean no source at all -- material simply made up by the reporter. A more widespread concern, however, is that human communications are rarely perfect. Did the reporter's interpretation accurately portray what his source said? Or did he hear what he wanted to hear? Or did he paraphrase; allowing his bias to alter the meaning? The only way to know is to ask the source. That is why our legal system has cross-examinations; and why the accused is guaranteed the right to face his accuser. The use of anonymous sources almost guarantees that the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth will not be transmitted with accuracy and precision.
As a scientist, I suggest that considering themselves the "watchdog of government" invalidates the media's credibility by any objective scientific standard. It injects a massive anti-government bias that overwhelms the media's well-known liberal bias. As the "watchdog of government," the media needs to find government impropriety -- or make it up if they can't -- to justify their existence. Such a bias would not be tolerated in science, in law or in any other honest field of human endeavor.
A profession considering itself the "watchdog of government" is an excellent example of the mass media fooling itself, believing what it wants to believe. I recall well when our media acted as the ministry of propaganda for the North Vietnamese: The media told the American public that the Tet Offensive of 1968 was a North Vietnamese victory. In fact, it was an unmitigated military disaster for the Communists. Our media repeated that lie incessantly until, finally, the American public believed them, lost patience and stopped supporting the Vietnamese conflict.
In World War II we had censorship of the media. We won that war. In the Vietnam conflict we suffered the consequences of allowing our mass media unrestricted access to flood our homes with grisly scene
Maybe this will make people sit up and take notice of how horrible IE is. This guy's one of the loudest pro-MS voices out there, and if he's not satisfied, something's really wrong!
hmm, in that case, I'd probably do either Ubuntu or maybe even Knoppix (which you can install on the hard drive). Something user-friendly but Debian-based, just because I like Debian.:-)
Seems to be the same story here... The machine I'm using is connected directly to the Internet, so there aren't any firewall issues. It just doesn't find anybody else with the file.
Seems to be the same story here... The machine I'm using is connected directly to the Internet, so there aren't any firewall issues. It just doesn't find anybody else with the file.
Slashdot Mirror
What would you call it? The Civil War? That's factually incorrect.
Sure, flamebait, why not. These are some of the best definitions of the words as our liberal friends know them. When the truth sounds like flamebait, you're really in trouble...
Because states are the primary unit of government. There is no fundamental Constitutional right to life. The fundamental Constitutional right is to not have your life taken from you by government without due process.
The only issues that are federal (should be) those that have a specific reason to be. Interstate commerce, lawsuits between states, international matters, etc.
I may dislike killing babies, but everybody else can kill babies if they like!
I think he's talking about the War for Southern Independence.
I think the main problem with the abortion debate is that Roe v Wade set up one place (the Supreme Court) where there's a knock-down, drag-out, winner-take-all battle to the death where one side or the other prevails.
I don't see why it's a federal issue at all. Murder isn't. Back the Feds out of the debate, and the states can decide how they want to handle it. The ones who do it best will become models.
Note the default picks on the stock ticker: GOOG, MSFT, and YHOO. In that order!
That's a prime example of media distortions becoming "accepted fact".
Myth: The Tet Offensive Was a Communist Victory
Thank you; I should have put that in the comment as well as the text.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0786 71378X/qid=1123017832/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-0709 785-0426367?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
The same isn't true for science (or indeed journalism), where the biases of a source can affect the information presented, and should be investigated.
She's covering up _something else_, we just don't know what yet.
On 19 June, 2005, Oregon's Mail Tribune reported that in a recent survey of 419 media outlets, nearly one-fourth of editors said they have banned the use of anonymous sources entirely -- a good start. Yet most members of the press still claim they cannot manage their self-appointed duty as the "watchdog of government" without using anonymous sources.
One must ask, then, how the scientific community manages so well using only verifiable sources? No scientific journal editor would even consider allowing a reference to an anonymous source.
Thomas Henry Huxley defined science as "nothing but trained and organized common sense." Scientific method might be similarly summarized as simply "telling the truth." Science makes rigorous efforts to prevent self-interest, conscious or unconscious, from distorting the truth. In studies testing new medications, neither the physician giving the drug nor the recipient of the drug know whether the medicament being evaluated or a placebo is being given. These double-blind studies prevent distortion resulting from bias. Richard Feynman wrote of "learning how not to fool ourselves" and of having "utter scientific integrity" as being part of "our responsibility as scientists." Scientists are trained to understand how deceptively easy it is to believe what they want to believe and to recognize that they must constantly be on guard against allowing this form of bias to compromise the integrity of their work.
How much a given field of knowledge values the truth can be measured by the attention it gives to methods attempting to preserve the truth.
The steady stream of high-profile scandals in the mass media over the past several years -- ranging from forged documents to trying to pass off fiction as news -- indicates that media methods need some serious scrutiny. First, consider my title, Anonymous sources: A license to lie. I don't mean to imply that reporters lie every time they cite an unidentified source. But consider: an anonymous source could mean no source at all -- material simply made up by the reporter. A more widespread concern, however, is that human communications are rarely perfect. Did the reporter's interpretation accurately portray what his source said? Or did he hear what he wanted to hear? Or did he paraphrase; allowing his bias to alter the meaning? The only way to know is to ask the source. That is why our legal system has cross-examinations; and why the accused is guaranteed the right to face his accuser. The use of anonymous sources almost guarantees that the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth will not be transmitted with accuracy and precision.
As a scientist, I suggest that considering themselves the "watchdog of government" invalidates the media's credibility by any objective scientific standard. It injects a massive anti-government bias that overwhelms the media's well-known liberal bias. As the "watchdog of government," the media needs to find government impropriety -- or make it up if they can't -- to justify their existence. Such a bias would not be tolerated in science, in law or in any other honest field of human endeavor.
A profession considering itself the "watchdog of government" is an excellent example of the mass media fooling itself, believing what it wants to believe. I recall well when our media acted as the ministry of propaganda for the North Vietnamese: The media told the American public that the Tet Offensive of 1968 was a North Vietnamese victory. In fact, it was an unmitigated military disaster for the Communists. Our media repeated that lie incessantly until, finally, the American public believed them, lost patience and stopped supporting the Vietnamese conflict.
In World War II we had censorship of the media. We won that war. In the Vietnam conflict we suffered the consequences of allowing our mass media unrestricted access to flood our homes with grisly scene
15:7-10
Maybe this will make people sit up and take notice of how horrible IE is. This guy's one of the loudest pro-MS voices out there, and if he's not satisfied, something's really wrong!
It does it all, and it values the most expensive component of software (for all but the biggest Web apps): programmer time.
Not if it means turning them all off every boot...
hmm, in that case, I'd probably do either Ubuntu or maybe even Knoppix (which you can install on the hard drive). Something user-friendly but Debian-based, just because I like Debian. :-)
You'll probably want to do the actual compiling on another machine, though.
Overall, though, I'd recommend Debian Stable. Fire-and-forget.
I was really looking forward to 1.1. Beta next month, and it's scheduled for release in (brace yourself): "??? 2005".
Seems to be the same story here... The machine I'm using is connected directly to the Internet, so there aren't any firewall issues. It just doesn't find anybody else with the file.
Seems to be the same story here... The machine I'm using is connected directly to the Internet, so there aren't any firewall issues. It just doesn't find anybody else with the file.
Okay, btdownloadcurses.py says status is "downloading", but it apparently sees no peers or seeds, and isn't actually doing anything. :-(
I think we're all trying to figure out Python errors upon installing the .deb...