Well, the article I linked to wasn't peer reviewed either, or the holy word of God, but since the space.com article I was replying to was dated December 2003, I think it was appropriate.
It might be fun to at least consider looking into your statements of 'fact'. For example, you might think about whether the statement "Mars has global warming" is a scientific fact, or just a hypothesis still in need of testing... or it might be fun just to smirk and assume you have all the answers.
Your link, for example, says, "new data points to the possibility" of a warming trend. Here, in contrast, is someone disputing (in just one of many ways) your implicit suggestion that both Mars and Earth are warming due to some external cause:
Another thing to consider: "more study is needed" (from your space.com citation).
Finally, even if Mars is experiencing 'global warming' - is it of the same magnitude that we are? Why is it happening? You seem pretty eager to latch on to whatever evidence supports your theory without finding out very much about it...
In the same vein, of your comment, by increasing the pool of 'good-enough' workers, Microsoft is able recruit slightly 'better' employees, even if there were enough US workers to do the job. In other words, maybe I could do the job fine, but the H1B worker from India could do it slightly better. That incremental increase in ability will not be rewarded with a higher salary.
I suppose by the time I post this someone else will have already pointed it out, but just in case...
Over a week they counted about 7,000 employees going to illicit sites. This represents about than 1% of the 70,000 employees of the DOI.
Actually, it represents 10% according to your figures. [7000/70000=.10]
Also, the loss they report is 2,027,887. That's two million, not billion, dollars....
In the end it shows the lack of logical skills possessed by the average reporter, and, i fear, by posting it on/., the lack of logic skills of the average geek..
Because there are a lot of Christians like me who wouldn't hesitate to shoot those violent fucks if we caught them in the act. Why? Our religion teaches that preserving life is a duty of all Jews and Christians.
Excellent comment - thank you. I don't think most of us who believe in "gun control" think that it should be synonymous with "gun elimination".
My own 2 cents is that the idea that guns somehow protect our freedoms is a little illogical, to begin with. Have all of you making that argument forgotten tanks, planes, helicopters, even nuclear weapons? Surely you don't believe we should put those into civilian control, as well? If the US military, for whatever unlikely reason, decided that it wanted to trample all over our civil rights, even thousands of gun-toting civilians wouldn't be able to stop them.
Killing a whore in GTA lets you get the release and satisfaction without actually hurting a human being.
Which study says this? I don't see any more facts or sources cited in your response than in TFA.
Now, I would never suggest that playing violent games unfailingly turns healthy young men into derranged killers. There's no evidence for it. Still, it looks like you'd agree that the media we consume most likely does have an effect on us; you believe it to be one of catharis and calming. But that's just an opinion. Mine happens to be that they tend to encourage passivity and inertia, and sap our will to make changes in our own lives and in the real world.
I may be wrong, but the real effects are need to be explored scientifically, because the scope of video game playing and other immersive entertainment is increasing every year. Books and oral myths have shaped societies and changed the world (for better or worse), and these new kinds of media could very well have even more potent effects.
Who knows what those effects will be? Maybe they're the perfect tool for priming a society for totalitarianism and oligarchy. Don't discount the possibility that gaming can negatively impact our behavior (or that of our kids and society) merely because you get satisfaction from it...
I'm not advocating banning games, by the way. Just making damn sure we know what they're doing to our kids.
"Real median household income remained unchanged between 2002 and 2003 at $43,318." (source)
That includes a whole lot of two-worker households. Unfortunately, not everyone is privileged enough to support their family on a single person's salary.
Unfortunately, most parents can't be there all the time for their children. I think it would be great to stay at home with my children, but the chances of my wife supporting both of us in the near future are slim to none.
On the other hand, I agree the parents need to be responsible for what their kids do on the Internet. If you don't understand how to set up filtering software, and you don't want them to see porn, take away the computer. Problem solved.
An even better solution: talk to them about sex and sexuality.
It's not quite as simple as you make it seem. Say, for example, that I told you the George Bush enjoys touching little boys.
I might mean that he likes to be a positive influence in the lives of these children... but what probably popped into the heads of many people was that he was a pedophile. If I am aware of these connotations, and I use it intentionally, am I lying?
Ignoring one possible reason for that, which is that you simply attribute more validity and hence a more thought-out perspective to one political viewpoint than the other...
Let's do some pretend analysis with some inaccurate labels (right and left) and a healthy dose of generalization.
Say that the group of Slashdot posters is made up of: 80% "left-wingers" 20% "right-wingers"
Assuming lefts and rights come up with relatively proportional numbers of insightful posts, you are going to see a whole lot more overrated comments by lefties. This is because of the fact that most moderaters are left-leaning as well, which means that you'll find that only the best right-wing comments are modded up, while the standards for left-wingers are lower. The end result will be that, based on a survey of modded-up comments, you'll tend to see many more badly-thought-out-yet-modded-up liberal comments than conservative ones.
The end result is, conservatives appear to be the intelligent minority, when really their bullshit is just screened better.
I've heard the security risk posed by the port deal is that, in practice, the Coast Guard relies a great deal on private companies to be honest and effective in identifying cargo. It's not like they inspect EVERY container....
Then again, I live more than 1000 miles from an ocean, so what do I know about port security?
You tried to justify one wrong (that there are poor, downtrodden people) by saying that it started in the past, and is therefore of no consequence. By implication, since all wrongs that we can act on have occurred in the past, all wrongs should go unpunished and unrectified.
They found them, developed them, exploited and, most importantly, protected them.
Survival of the fittest! So you only deserve to possess what you can protect? Sounds like the 419ers are totally justified, then... if the stupid Americans can't protect their cash, they don't deserve it.
Obviously, these scammers aren't justified in stealing. Instead of severely punishing them and adding to their feelings of persecution, doesn't it make sense to try to bring them into the system, and find a way for them to be productive? That's really what "social justice" is about. It's about giving people a chance, or a second chance, and not merely punishing them for breaking laws in a society that doesn't really protect or serve them.
By the way, please respond to what I said, and not some stereotype of what you think a liberal is.
Oops - correction: it refers to 'any laws' that might prevent roads or barriers necessary for Homeland Security. More obnoxious, still not as extensive as implied, and the law itself is still subject to judicial review.
And the clause was misquoted, as I suspected.
But I heard that the bill states that "no court shall have jurisdiction to hear any cause or claim arising from any action undertaken, or any decision made, by the Secretary of Homeland Security, or order compensatory, declaratory, injunctive, equitable, or any other relief for damage alleged to arise from any such action or decision."
How can this be moderated insightful? Not only does the parent repeat this quote twice (incorrectly, I believe), he/she takes it completely out of context - it refers only to an exemption to the Endangered Species Act for one contruction project. This doesn't grant free reign to the Department of Homeland Security to do anything like the scenario described.
Furthermore, that flippant, accusing tone won't convince anyone that you know what you're talking about, or that you are interested in rational discussion.
That said, it is a ridiculous proposition - that Congress can exempt laws from judicial review - and I wouldn't be surprised to see it struck down in court. Yes, that can still happen, despite the law!
By all means, write your congresspersons, but try to understand all the facts first, or you'll end up hurting your own cause.
At some point, you guys are going to sound like people who won't set foot on a boat because "gosh darn, that there Titanic was supposed ter be unsinkubble!"
If we're going to make that kind of comment, I could say: "at some point, you guys are going to sound like people who keep driving drunk because 'gosh darn, I made it home safe every other time!"
Hardly addresses the point, does it?
Just to clarify things, I was pointing out that there are reasons for caution, not claiming nuclear power should be banned for all eternity.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, the article I linked to wasn't peer reviewed either, or the holy word of God, but since the space.com article I was replying to was dated December 2003, I think it was appropriate.
It might be fun to at least consider looking into your statements of 'fact'. For example, you might think about whether the statement "Mars has global warming" is a scientific fact, or just a hypothesis still in need of testing... or it might be fun just to smirk and assume you have all the answers.
Your link, for example, says, "new data points to the possibility" of a warming trend. Here, in contrast, is someone disputing (in just one of many ways) your implicit suggestion that both Mars and Earth are warming due to some external cause:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192
Another thing to consider: "more study is needed" (from your space.com citation).
Finally, even if Mars is experiencing 'global warming' - is it of the same magnitude that we are? Why is it happening? You seem pretty eager to latch on to whatever evidence supports your theory without finding out very much about it...
I agree!
In the same vein, of your comment, by increasing the pool of 'good-enough' workers, Microsoft is able recruit slightly 'better' employees, even if there were enough US workers to do the job. In other words, maybe I could do the job fine, but the H1B worker from India could do it slightly better. That incremental increase in ability will not be rewarded with a higher salary.
Aw (not as in awe-struck...) shucks (not as in stripping corn stalks) you're such cunning linguist...
Not as in what?
Also, the loss they report is 2,027,887. That's two million, not billion, dollars....
Now I have to admit to reading the article.
I suppose by the time I post this someone else will have already pointed it out, but just in case...
/., the lack of logic skills of the average geek..
Over a week they counted about 7,000 employees going to illicit sites. This represents about than 1% of the 70,000 employees of the DOI.
Actually, it represents 10% according to your figures. [7000/70000=.10]
Also, the loss they report is 2,027,887. That's two million, not billion, dollars....
In the end it shows the lack of logical skills possessed by the average reporter, and, i fear, by posting it on
Err.........
Because there are a lot of Christians like me who wouldn't hesitate to shoot those violent fucks if we caught them in the act. Why? Our religion teaches that preserving life is a duty of all Jews and Christians.
Is this supposed to be a joke?
Excellent comment - thank you. I don't think most of us who believe in "gun control" think that it should be synonymous with "gun elimination".
My own 2 cents is that the idea that guns somehow protect our freedoms is a little illogical, to begin with. Have all of you making that argument forgotten tanks, planes, helicopters, even nuclear weapons? Surely you don't believe we should put those into civilian control, as well? If the US military, for whatever unlikely reason, decided that it wanted to trample all over our civil rights, even thousands of gun-toting civilians wouldn't be able to stop them.
Killing a whore in GTA lets you get the release and satisfaction without actually hurting a human being.
Which study says this? I don't see any more facts or sources cited in your response than in TFA.
Now, I would never suggest that playing violent games unfailingly turns healthy young men into derranged killers. There's no evidence for it. Still, it looks like you'd agree that the media we consume most likely does have an effect on us; you believe it to be one of catharis and calming. But that's just an opinion. Mine happens to be that they tend to encourage passivity and inertia, and sap our will to make changes in our own lives and in the real world.
I may be wrong, but the real effects are need to be explored scientifically, because the scope of video game playing and other immersive entertainment is increasing every year. Books and oral myths have shaped societies and changed the world (for better or worse), and these new kinds of media could very well have even more potent effects.
Who knows what those effects will be? Maybe they're the perfect tool for priming a society for totalitarianism and oligarchy. Don't discount the possibility that gaming can negatively impact our behavior (or that of our kids and society) merely because you get satisfaction from it...
I'm not advocating banning games, by the way. Just making damn sure we know what they're doing to our kids.
Being poor, I can say I could never afford anything but a used car. So that time is now?
Just curious - where is your source for this info?
I think it should be pointed out again that your numbers seem to be made up:
Check out the CIA world factbook. Some quick math shows that in 2001, the US was($12.4 trillion / $59.6 trillion) about 21% of the world GDP.
If we produce 25% of the world's pollution, as you claim, we are actually not the most efficient - far from it.
Unless you can pull up some sources, I would say your argument fails.
"Real median household income remained unchanged between 2002 and 2003 at $43,318." (source)
That includes a whole lot of two-worker households. Unfortunately, not everyone is privileged enough to support their family on a single person's salary.
Unfortunately, most parents can't be there all the time for their children. I think it would be great to stay at home with my children, but the chances of my wife supporting both of us in the near future are slim to none.
On the other hand, I agree the parents need to be responsible for what their kids do on the Internet. If you don't understand how to set up filtering software, and you don't want them to see porn, take away the computer. Problem solved.
An even better solution: talk to them about sex and sexuality.
Alienware does not make their own laptops, according to what I've read.
It's not quite as simple as you make it seem. Say, for example, that I told you the George Bush enjoys touching little boys.
I might mean that he likes to be a positive influence in the lives of these children... but what probably popped into the heads of many people was that he was a pedophile. If I am aware of these connotations, and I use it intentionally, am I lying?
I would say yes.
Ignoring one possible reason for that, which is that you simply attribute more validity and hence a more thought-out perspective to one political viewpoint than the other...
Let's do some pretend analysis with some inaccurate labels (right and left) and a healthy dose of generalization.
Say that the group of Slashdot posters is made up of:
80% "left-wingers"
20% "right-wingers"
Assuming lefts and rights come up with relatively proportional numbers of insightful posts, you are going to see a whole lot more overrated comments by lefties. This is because of the fact that most moderaters are left-leaning as well, which means that you'll find that only the best right-wing comments are modded up, while the standards for left-wingers are lower. The end result will be that, based on a survey of modded-up comments, you'll tend to see many more badly-thought-out-yet-modded-up liberal comments than conservative ones.
The end result is, conservatives appear to be the intelligent minority, when really their bullshit is just screened better.
I've heard the security risk posed by the port deal is that, in practice, the Coast Guard relies a great deal on private companies to be honest and effective in identifying cargo. It's not like they inspect EVERY container....
Then again, I live more than 1000 miles from an ocean, so what do I know about port security?
Incorrect. The rich end up paying less because of their large tax breaks, the poor end up paying more.
You tried to justify one wrong (that there are poor, downtrodden people) by saying that it started in the past, and is therefore of no consequence. By implication, since all wrongs that we can act on have occurred in the past, all wrongs should go unpunished and unrectified.
Survival of the fittest! So you only deserve to possess what you can protect? Sounds like the 419ers are totally justified, then... if the stupid Americans can't protect their cash, they don't deserve it.
Obviously, these scammers aren't justified in stealing. Instead of severely punishing them and adding to their feelings of persecution, doesn't it make sense to try to bring them into the system, and find a way for them to be productive? That's really what "social justice" is about. It's about giving people a chance, or a second chance, and not merely punishing them for breaking laws in a society that doesn't really protect or serve them.
By the way, please respond to what I said, and not some stereotype of what you think a liberal is.
They have their own servers. Please stop the racist jokes.
She's not just some overworked secretary. This makes it clear why she was fired.
Has it occurred to you that we don't pick up on your sarcasm because we're not used to your funny-sounding accent?
Oops - correction: it refers to 'any laws' that might prevent roads or barriers necessary for Homeland Security. More obnoxious, still not as extensive as implied, and the law itself is still subject to judicial review. And the clause was misquoted, as I suspected.
But I heard that the bill states that "no court shall have jurisdiction to hear any cause or claim arising from any action undertaken, or any decision made, by the Secretary of Homeland Security, or order compensatory, declaratory, injunctive, equitable, or any other relief for damage alleged to arise from any such action or decision."
How can this be moderated insightful? Not only does the parent repeat this quote twice (incorrectly, I believe), he/she takes it completely out of context - it refers only to an exemption to the Endangered Species Act for one contruction project. This doesn't grant free reign to the Department of Homeland Security to do anything like the scenario described.
Furthermore, that flippant, accusing tone won't convince anyone that you know what you're talking about, or that you are interested in rational discussion.
That said, it is a ridiculous proposition - that Congress can exempt laws from judicial review - and I wouldn't be surprised to see it struck down in court. Yes, that can still happen, despite the law!
By all means, write your congresspersons, but try to understand all the facts first, or you'll end up hurting your own cause.
At some point, you guys are going to sound like people who won't set foot on a boat because "gosh darn, that there Titanic was supposed ter be unsinkubble!" If we're going to make that kind of comment, I could say: "at some point, you guys are going to sound like people who keep driving drunk because 'gosh darn, I made it home safe every other time!" Hardly addresses the point, does it? Just to clarify things, I was pointing out that there are reasons for caution, not claiming nuclear power should be banned for all eternity.