Yeah the "article" reads like someone who never realized that the government funds academic research, and just stumbled upon this enlightening nugget of truth. Of course, he's the first to find this out, so it's his duty to inform the world. He's probably also of the opinion that the stem-cell debate is about legalizing stem cell research, not the government funding of it....but that's a whole other flame war...or maybe another wiki he'll create:)
Maybe it's because all the ozone fearmongers have jumped ship to the rising tide of global warming. They realized the hole isn't going to get much bigger, and so global warming offers much more bang for your buck when you want to be an alarmist. 10 years from now the warmists will stumble upon the next great catastrophe. Starting to see a pattern? No? Think back now, remember when "overpopulation" was all the rage? Overpopulation was the hit catastrophe in the early 80's, I remember going to museums as a kid and seeing giant electronic numbers counting up, showing the size of the world's population with cataclismic charts of the world. National Geographic ran constant articles on it, everybody feared the lack of food sources. And that wasn't the first...
Global cooling gave way to overpopulation, which gave way to the hole in the ozone, which now passed on to global warming. If I was old enough, I'm sure I'd recognize what came before those too...help me out, fill in the timeline:)
The Fed isn't here to protect the value of OUR money
And if that gets your interest piqued, search for the Council on Foreign Relations and their role in the Fed. Then ask yourself why the head of the Secretary of State has been a CFR member for the past several decades. And why presidential candidates (both rep and dem) are *almost* always members of the CFR. Ahh it's a whole new world of elitism nobody seems to know about.
Sounds good to me. But then again, from an outsider's perspective, it could be just as likely that Joe Tehran wants Israel wiped out too. The problem with the outsider's perspective is that what Joe Tehran thinks actually has little bearing on how you deal with the overbearing crazy government that wants to wipe out entire populations.
I'm not sure how you are drawing distinctions here. If an action is ethically wrong, then it is ethically wrong regardless of what your personal motivations are when you do it.
Sniffing employee emails for no reason is ethically wrong, as you stated. But sniffing employee emails (ok, web traffic) is not ethically wrong because you have a hunch?
This is why we have a field of study called ethics in the first place... the rules are supposed to guide you so that you don't let your intuition and hunches lead you down the ugly dark paths.
It's because the author isn't talking about CO2 emissions. He's following what CA has dubbed, partial zero emissions. PZE refers to the particulate matter and smog producing emissions, not CO2, and the author has been duped by the "zero emissions" phrase. Not only is the phrase itself misleading, but any respectable reporter should have explained it more than this joker did. I'm still confused and pretty certain there isn't any actual knowledge in that article.
It's because the author of that article is about as confused as the PZEV terms are confusing in and of themselves. I read the article twice and have decided that there is no real information in it. No explanation of why it is "illegal", and no explanation of how burning gas can all of a sudden be emission free. I'm 99% sure that he is writing English, but I haven't been able to resolve it into meaning beyond:
He also dangles "pollution free" and "zero emissions" in front of us without explaining that burning gas will always produce byproducts, no matter what filter you put on. Sure, you're filtering particulate material, but that doesn't mean you have zero emissions! It's a terrible article, instead of learning anything, I think it actually added extra noise to my head.
The church has not historically been kind to intellectuals, and while more modern sects may indeed promote literacy, it has not been that long since the church restricted the printing of the bible to a dead language.
Your reference to the church restricting printing of the bible relates to the Catholic Church. Your previous post was about *Puritanical* influences on today's views. Either (a) you think the puritans and catholic church of the 1700's are the same, or (b) you just throw out random examples of oppression. You can cherry pick however many unrelated examples you want, but it just makes your argument baseless. Read up on the puritans and the USA's educational system history, please.
I really don't know where to start with this post, except to say that it's really sad how people don't understand the history of education in the United States, let alone the world. Most of the major universities in the US were founded with Christianity as its base. Did you know that the USA had the largest literate population in the world during your hated Puritan period? I'm guessing you didn't know this, judging by your critical tone. The Puritans honored literacy, pushed literacy, and for the first time, most *women* could read in society. Why? To read the Bible and discover truth.
Take a tour around some of the oldest universities in the US and you will find inscriptions all over linking Christianity to science (of all things!!!), the discovery of truth in nature, etc. etc. It's only a recent (and sad) development that science and christians have become so separated. I believe there is plenty of blame on both sides for this, but surely, don't talk about "the roots of christianity" without actually looking at our history where the roots began.
I'm still amazed at how people still push to help girls succeed. It makes me think it has become a larger political issue about advancing women's views, and not because they are actually struggling. All the recent evidence points to girls succeeding beyond boys, and yet, where are the pro-boy programs? You will always be able to point out a specific area of work that men outnumber women, or vice versa, but that doesn't mean we should rectify that "problem". There's a much larger issue where boys are being left behind.
I suggest you read the actual text. The *context* that you refer to is "acts of violence". This is not an interpretation in some cultural context that a judge must make, the document explicitly wraps everything around the clause "acts of violence", mentioned multiple times. But you wouldn't read the text because your emotions are involved...to which I refer to my previous post.
If one is to mandate that measures be taken to prevent intellectual property theft, one should provide a plan for funding of such an endeavor.
Not really, the government exists (in part, after its primary duty of providing a common defense) to make laws deeming a society it desires. Funding those laws is a secondary task. Every year, the IRS requires companies to withhold taxes from employee paychecks, rather than the taxpayer directly paying them. All those W-2 forms that are sent out come directly from the company. This is an *immense* burden on every single business, yet no funding is provided. Companies also must report who/where/when they hire full time employees, yet no funding is provided. There are countless examples such as these, and this latest Democrat attempt at imposing reporting requirements is nothing new.
I applaud your attempt to explain sections, subsections, and supporting clauses. But alas, when one's emotions get involved, they are going to ignore what the document actually says. It's obvious the order refers to acts of violence, but the slashdot summary already incorrectly summarized it for the masses.
It's interesting to see that Diet Coke (46.3 mg/12 oz) has so much more caffeine than regular Coke (33.9 mg/12 oz). I can't get to the full text of the article... is this a typo? Or is there a reason the diet version would have so much more? Pepsi and Diet Pepsi have relatively the same amount.
You'll understand what the **** I'm talking about after you see Moore's new movie. Cuba is his country of choice, and thus the place I refer to about waiving all your rights for some decent health coverage. They have great health care apparently, although I really don't know how true that is.
I'm impressed with your post. Almost every sentence is a personal attack, and you even admit you are smug at the end. Yet you are labeled "interesting" and not flamebait. Kudos, I have much to learn from you.
You may have to get used to people saying such silly things. I've noticed a recent surge in similar opinions among various people I talk to these days, just look at the new Michael Moore movie....it's the new wave. Waive all your rights for the privilege of living under a system that gives you free health care. So we can't speak out, assemble, or become disgruntled, so what? We get awesome health benefits! Yeah I know, I mentioned Michael Moore and health care, so this will immediately fall into a flame war over those two issues instead of free speech...my bad.
And don't worry, I'm plenty pissed at the Japanese for their whaling, too. When I'm given the option, I try to buy my electronics etc from other sources, and I'm happy to tell them why.
I wonder what phone number you call to explain your convictions. 10 bucks says you've never told "them" why you don't buy their electronics.
If anyone wants an actual perspective on this situation, Alaska has a FAQ about subsistence fishing and how it really works, not in the make believe world the parent is trying to describe. Don't mod me up, I'm just copying the link from someone else.
Copernicus was a Roman Catholic who was encouraged by his bishop to spread his research about heliocentrism. Galileo ran into trouble because of remarks he made about the hope - politics was the problem, not science. I don't recall Da Vinci running into any problems re: science and religion and he is recorded as wanting to die catholic with confession etc. If you take a look at two of the greatest ever scientist, Faraday and Maxwell, you'll see that they were evangelical Christians who played in active role in teaching the Bible in their local churches.
And don't forget Carl Linnaeus, father of modern taxonomy. He was a devout Christian, and was the first to chronicle in detail the thousands of varieties of plants, insects, and animals (though more so plants). Hundreds of quotes about him searching to see the face of God by understanding God's creation.
I appreciate seeing a few slashdotters who haven't been vamboozled by this science-and-religion-dont-mix mantra. Such a viewpoint has only recently developed in the past several decades. I don't just blame the "science" crowd or the "religious" crowd for the hatred, there's plenty of blame to go to each side. The fact is, science and religion CAN mix. Many many areas of science were born from Christians, I could go on. It's time for the non-fringe religious to step up and reclaim it.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah the "article" reads like someone who never realized that the government funds academic research, and just stumbled upon this enlightening nugget of truth. Of course, he's the first to find this out, so it's his duty to inform the world. He's probably also of the opinion that the stem-cell debate is about legalizing stem cell research, not the government funding of it. ...but that's a whole other flame war...or maybe another wiki he'll create :)
Maybe it's because all the ozone fearmongers have jumped ship to the rising tide of global warming. They realized the hole isn't going to get much bigger, and so global warming offers much more bang for your buck when you want to be an alarmist. 10 years from now the warmists will stumble upon the next great catastrophe. Starting to see a pattern? No? Think back now, remember when "overpopulation" was all the rage? Overpopulation was the hit catastrophe in the early 80's, I remember going to museums as a kid and seeing giant electronic numbers counting up, showing the size of the world's population with cataclismic charts of the world. National Geographic ran constant articles on it, everybody feared the lack of food sources. And that wasn't the first...
Global cooling gave way to overpopulation, which gave way to the hole in the ozone, which now passed on to global warming. If I was old enough, I'm sure I'd recognize what came before those too...help me out, fill in the timeline :)
The Fed isn't here to protect the value of OUR money
And if that gets your interest piqued, search for the Council on Foreign Relations and their role in the Fed. Then ask yourself why the head of the Secretary of State has been a CFR member for the past several decades. And why presidential candidates (both rep and dem) are *almost* always members of the CFR. Ahh it's a whole new world of elitism nobody seems to know about.
Sounds good to me. But then again, from an outsider's perspective, it could be just as likely that Joe Tehran wants Israel wiped out too. The problem with the outsider's perspective is that what Joe Tehran thinks actually has little bearing on how you deal with the overbearing crazy government that wants to wipe out entire populations.
I'm not sure how you are drawing distinctions here. If an action is ethically wrong, then it is ethically wrong regardless of what your personal motivations are when you do it.
Sniffing employee emails for no reason is ethically wrong, as you stated. But sniffing employee emails (ok, web traffic) is not ethically wrong because you have a hunch?
This is why we have a field of study called ethics in the first place ... the rules are supposed to guide you so that you don't let your intuition and hunches lead you down the ugly dark paths.
Quotes are great because you don't need facts to prove them true. Although if I took a minute, I could probably find the backing for this one:
"Not all liberals are criminals, but it is true that most criminals are liberal."
It's because the author isn't talking about CO2 emissions. He's following what CA has dubbed, partial zero emissions. PZE refers to the particulate matter and smog producing emissions, not CO2, and the author has been duped by the "zero emissions" phrase. Not only is the phrase itself misleading, but any respectable reporter should have explained it more than this joker did. I'm still confused and pretty certain there isn't any actual knowledge in that article.
It's because the author of that article is about as confused as the PZEV terms are confusing in and of themselves. I read the article twice and have decided that there is no real information in it. No explanation of why it is "illegal", and no explanation of how burning gas can all of a sudden be emission free. I'm 99% sure that he is writing English, but I haven't been able to resolve it into meaning beyond:
blah blah
blah
I heart California
blah blah blah
He also dangles "pollution free" and "zero emissions" in front of us without explaining that burning gas will always produce byproducts, no matter what filter you put on. Sure, you're filtering particulate material, but that doesn't mean you have zero emissions! It's a terrible article, instead of learning anything, I think it actually added extra noise to my head.
The church has not historically been kind to intellectuals, and while more modern sects may indeed promote literacy, it has not been that long since the church restricted the printing of the bible to a dead language.
Your reference to the church restricting printing of the bible relates to the Catholic Church. Your previous post was about *Puritanical* influences on today's views. Either (a) you think the puritans and catholic church of the 1700's are the same, or (b) you just throw out random examples of oppression. You can cherry pick however many unrelated examples you want, but it just makes your argument baseless. Read up on the puritans and the USA's educational system history, please.
OMG?
I really don't know where to start with this post, except to say that it's really sad how people don't understand the history of education in the United States, let alone the world. Most of the major universities in the US were founded with Christianity as its base. Did you know that the USA had the largest literate population in the world during your hated Puritan period? I'm guessing you didn't know this, judging by your critical tone. The Puritans honored literacy, pushed literacy, and for the first time, most *women* could read in society. Why? To read the Bible and discover truth.
Take a tour around some of the oldest universities in the US and you will find inscriptions all over linking Christianity to science (of all things!!!), the discovery of truth in nature, etc. etc. It's only a recent (and sad) development that science and christians have become so separated. I believe there is plenty of blame on both sides for this, but surely, don't talk about "the roots of christianity" without actually looking at our history where the roots began.
I'm still amazed at how people still push to help girls succeed. It makes me think it has become a larger political issue about advancing women's views, and not because they are actually struggling. All the recent evidence points to girls succeeding beyond boys, and yet, where are the pro-boy programs? You will always be able to point out a specific area of work that men outnumber women, or vice versa, but that doesn't mean we should rectify that "problem". There's a much larger issue where boys are being left behind.
Women have outnumbered men at colleges for ~25 years now. Women outnumber men 58% to 42%.
75 percent of girls aim for college degrees vs. 66 percent of boys
The study found that not only are girls in the nation's 100 largest school districts graduating at a ">72 percent rate versus 65 percent for their male counterparts, but that the gender gap is even wider among minority students.
I suggest you read the actual text. The *context* that you refer to is "acts of violence". This is not an interpretation in some cultural context that a judge must make, the document explicitly wraps everything around the clause "acts of violence", mentioned multiple times. But you wouldn't read the text because your emotions are involved...to which I refer to my previous post.
If one is to mandate that measures be taken to prevent intellectual property theft, one should provide a plan for funding of such an endeavor.
Not really, the government exists (in part, after its primary duty of providing a common defense) to make laws deeming a society it desires. Funding those laws is a secondary task. Every year, the IRS requires companies to withhold taxes from employee paychecks, rather than the taxpayer directly paying them. All those W-2 forms that are sent out come directly from the company. This is an *immense* burden on every single business, yet no funding is provided. Companies also must report who/where/when they hire full time employees, yet no funding is provided. There are countless examples such as these, and this latest Democrat attempt at imposing reporting requirements is nothing new.
I applaud your attempt to explain sections, subsections, and supporting clauses. But alas, when one's emotions get involved, they are going to ignore what the document actually says. It's obvious the order refers to acts of violence, but the slashdot summary already incorrectly summarized it for the masses.
It's interesting to see that Diet Coke (46.3 mg/12 oz) has so much more caffeine than regular Coke (33.9 mg/12 oz). I can't get to the full text of the article ... is this a typo? Or is there a reason the diet version would have so much more? Pepsi and Diet Pepsi have relatively the same amount.
You're fun. If only you knew who I was, then we could all enjoy your comments about me together, but for now I'll reside to my own amusement.
You'll understand what the **** I'm talking about after you see Moore's new movie. Cuba is his country of choice, and thus the place I refer to about waiving all your rights for some decent health coverage. They have great health care apparently, although I really don't know how true that is.
I'm impressed with your post. Almost every sentence is a personal attack, and you even admit you are smug at the end. Yet you are labeled "interesting" and not flamebait. Kudos, I have much to learn from you.
From now on, I'm going to refer to my delete key as the destroy key.
Did you get my email? Yes, but I destroyed it.
Paper editing: I'm destroying this last sentence.
Disk cleanup: I need to destroy all of the older files.
Window closing: Destory the browser window after you logout.
You may have to get used to people saying such silly things. I've noticed a recent surge in similar opinions among various people I talk to these days, just look at the new Michael Moore movie....it's the new wave. Waive all your rights for the privilege of living under a system that gives you free health care. So we can't speak out, assemble, or become disgruntled, so what? We get awesome health benefits! Yeah I know, I mentioned Michael Moore and health care, so this will immediately fall into a flame war over those two issues instead of free speech...my bad.
And don't worry, I'm plenty pissed at the Japanese for their whaling, too. When I'm given the option, I try to buy my electronics etc from other sources, and I'm happy to tell them why.
I wonder what phone number you call to explain your convictions. 10 bucks says you've never told "them" why you don't buy their electronics.
If anyone wants an actual perspective on this situation, Alaska has a FAQ about subsistence fishing and how it really works, not in the make believe world the parent is trying to describe. Don't mod me up, I'm just copying the link from someone else.
I have read the article so that at least I know that they are limited to 255 whales per year for 10 villages.
Read even closer, and you'll see that it's 255 whales over five years for the 10 villages. In other words, 51 whales a year, or only 2 whales a month.
Copernicus was a Roman Catholic who was encouraged by his bishop to spread his research about heliocentrism. Galileo ran into trouble because of remarks he made about the hope - politics was the problem, not science. I don't recall Da Vinci running into any problems re: science and religion and he is recorded as wanting to die catholic with confession etc. If you take a look at two of the greatest ever scientist, Faraday and Maxwell, you'll see that they were evangelical Christians who played in active role in teaching the Bible in their local churches.
And don't forget Carl Linnaeus, father of modern taxonomy. He was a devout Christian, and was the first to chronicle in detail the thousands of varieties of plants, insects, and animals (though more so plants). Hundreds of quotes about him searching to see the face of God by understanding God's creation.
I appreciate seeing a few slashdotters who haven't been vamboozled by this science-and-religion-dont-mix mantra. Such a viewpoint has only recently developed in the past several decades. I don't just blame the "science" crowd or the "religious" crowd for the hatred, there's plenty of blame to go to each side. The fact is, science and religion CAN mix. Many many areas of science were born from Christians, I could go on. It's time for the non-fringe religious to step up and reclaim it.
By my count in the article, that's 28 Republicans and 21 Democrats. Of the presidential candidates, the two Democrats Barack and Hillary are on there.