"Why are signatures so unique and used as a de-facto identifier if handwriting and doodling has no psychological bearing."
Because whether they are reproducible (signatures for identification) is completely unrelated to what they say about personality.
Mostly because they're bunk when it comes to predicting personality traits. And yes, I am an expert, and I have read reams of research.
Lastly, they are NOT accurate at all. Graphology is completely useless for determining personality traits. Vague generalizations are possible, by using the same con-artistry that has kept psychics and astrologers in business.
Bullshit. You just described a phenomenon that has been conclusively disproven. The "he-bee-jeebies" the parent describes are the "yuk, that's just gross and not right" kind, not the intuition kind you describe.
Nope, I didn't forget because this was a discussion about the US tax system (federal income tax), not STATE tax systems. Congratulations on posting on something without bothering to understand the discussion.
"In other words. . . the First Amendment does not list these as prerequisites for having a RIGHT of free speech. By listing these prerequisites, you're trying to turn a RIGHT into a privilege"
Where is the logic in this? How do you read what I wrote, and get that? Seriously, what the hell is wrong with you.
My post adressed the audience, as in how to get one. It had nothing to do with "prerequisites for speech" because any idiot can stand on a street corner and yell. My point was that it is up to YOU to get someone to listen, and the government shouldn't get involved.
You might want to work on your reading comprehension.
And by banning references to them, you give people who use those references more power. You have now given endorsement of their symbol as controversial and radical, which is what many of these peole want. Briliant.
Managing is. You have hired people to handle the tech, so don't assume you know more than they do, and let them do it, even if it's wrong. You're not a geek anymore, but a manager who happens to be geeky.
I would dispute this (because it's not true) but you failed to define what poor is. You know very well there is a threshold below which the poor pay nothing (and in fact, often get money back). If those people are "poor" to you, then you're lying because they pay nothing.
If however, someone who makes 30,000 (for example) is poor to you, you are a fool, but correct, because they do pay taxes.
Um what does any of what YOU said have to do with what I said. I said we weren't responsible for the VIOLENCE. Read please.
We can give them all the weapons in the world. The choice to use them is their's, and as much as you try, you can't blame the US. We didn't MAKE them do anything.
A person (or country in this case) isn't responsible for how someone else acts. A person's or countries actions in response to someone else are their responsibility, so when you claim we caused those situations, you're the one who is uneducated.
They chose their course. It may have been in reaction to what the US did, but it was STILL THEIR CHOICE. Blaming anyone else is bullshit, but typical of people who refuse responsibility for their actions.
And by the way, mighty brave throwing stones behind the AC label.
No, it's not just that. It's also your tendency to exaggerate and your obvious bias. Ignore Kashmir if you like (you never addressed why there's so much hate if Indians don't hate).
Perhaps hate was too strong (frankly, it usually is) instead we'll say "intense, irrational, dislike, and overwhelming desire to apply bias to any information about the US"
No, it means do some god damned work and get the resources. Save, assemble like minded people, coordinate with other groups. Do some work instead of making up entitlements.
Why do people think they are owed a medium for their ideas?
The parent addressed this very well. While you are guaranteed freedom of speech, under no circumstances are you guaranteed either the means to broadcast it, or and audience.
As it should be. Forcing someone to broadcast a message they disagree with would violate THEIR rights (speech, assembly) and so is not acceptable.
"And don't forget that it's the actions of the US and it's foreign policies, that have made Iran and Iraq what they are today"
Please stop attempting to spread this lie. Everything that terrorists wish to accomplish could be done through non-violent means. Many others have done it.
But somehow, the US gets blamed by people like you. I'm willing to accept we had infuence in causing the situation, but we are not responsible for the violence. That could have been avoided, but for a lack of real intellectual leadership all the way around.
So what? The politics heat up, and a smart company decides to get out of the way. Totally reasonable, and easy to see it happening.
Not saying that's all there is to it, but it could very well just be business.
Alamagordo. And now you'll say "Those were TOP SECRET NIMROD!!!!"
To which I'll respond, "as top secret as a test that produces a humongous mushroom cloud and detonation in plain sight of ground level viewers can be."
5 miles from the public, by the way. Call it what you want, it was a public test.
"US guys think that except you nobody else deserves the right to nuclear weapons"
And you think allowing unfettered acces to weapons with the potential to destroy the human race is a good idea? Or are you ALSO (like the US, Russia, China, etc) of the opinion that nuclear proliferation is bad. You can't have it both ways.
"The chance of us using a nuclear weapon in anger is no more than the US using them in anger."
This, simply stated, is a lie. The political situation in most third world countries is far less stable that in the US (despite your bias, you must admit that's true). In addition, I GUARANTEE the technology used to prevent nukes from being used in the US is FAR mor advanced and effective than that of any third world country.
But, why let reason and fact get in the way of your anti-US rant, right?
Name an international superpower that thinks proliferation is a good idea. You want to blame the US, despite the fact that there are dozens of other countries that agree. Why?
Because you have an irrational hate for the US, but probably never bothered to learn anything about it. Don't bother telling me about all you know, because your post makes it clear how little that is.
Slashdot Mirror
"There is no need for more evidence than watching any of Gates's public appearances to understand what kind of person he is."
Because a minutes worth of video is plenty to make such comments.
"Why are signatures so unique and used as a de-facto identifier if handwriting and doodling has no psychological bearing."
Because whether they are reproducible (signatures for identification) is completely unrelated to what they say about personality.
Mostly because they're bunk when it comes to predicting personality traits. And yes, I am an expert, and I have read reams of research.
Lastly, they are NOT accurate at all. Graphology is completely useless for determining personality traits. Vague generalizations are possible, by using the same con-artistry that has kept psychics and astrologers in business.
"Really, the only expression that should be forbidden is one written in FORTRAN."
And yelling fire in a crowded theatre is a great idea, and should be encouraged.
Amazing how you torpedoed a good point with an idiotic opinion.
So use a mac. You people act as though MS is the ONLY alternative, and while I've heard people try to justify that idea, it fails every time.
When you have a viable alternative, it's a little ridiculous to use "lock-in" as an excuse.
The fact is alternatives for MS products are available. How badly you want them, and how much you'll pay, are where things get sticky.
"the old ones are "not supported anymore" by the service garages."
You mean like when I try to get parts for my 76 Porsche 914, and am told "That part has been discontinued"?
"but because for the average office drone the concept of saving in a reverse compatible format is to much of a hassel"
This has nothing to do with MS. If your idiot personnel can't do what you tell them, then it's also a management problem.
MS does lots of crappy stuff. I'm sure you can find a better example.
Bullshit. You just described a phenomenon that has been conclusively disproven. The "he-bee-jeebies" the parent describes are the "yuk, that's just gross and not right" kind, not the intuition kind you describe.
Nope, I didn't forget because this was a discussion about the US tax system (federal income tax), not STATE tax systems. Congratulations on posting on something without bothering to understand the discussion.
"In other words. . . the First Amendment does not list these as prerequisites for having a RIGHT of free speech. By listing these prerequisites, you're trying to turn a RIGHT into a privilege"
Where is the logic in this? How do you read what I wrote, and get that? Seriously, what the hell is wrong with you.
My post adressed the audience, as in how to get one. It had nothing to do with "prerequisites for speech" because any idiot can stand on a street corner and yell. My point was that it is up to YOU to get someone to listen, and the government shouldn't get involved.
You might want to work on your reading comprehension.
"The evils of capitalism"blah blah blah. Because the other choices are so much more successful right?
Troll. Stop hating something you don't understand. More importantly, stop spouting 1st year university rhetoric, it makes you sound silly.
And by banning references to them, you give people who use those references more power. You have now given endorsement of their symbol as controversial and radical, which is what many of these peole want. Briliant.
Managing is. You have hired people to handle the tech, so don't assume you know more than they do, and let them do it, even if it's wrong. You're not a geek anymore, but a manager who happens to be geeky.
"I didn't say the poor don't pay taxes. They do"
I would dispute this (because it's not true) but you failed to define what poor is. You know very well there is a threshold below which the poor pay nothing (and in fact, often get money back). If those people are "poor" to you, then you're lying because they pay nothing.
If however, someone who makes 30,000 (for example) is poor to you, you are a fool, but correct, because they do pay taxes.
Your choice.
Um what does any of what YOU said have to do with what I said. I said we weren't responsible for the VIOLENCE. Read please.
We can give them all the weapons in the world. The choice to use them is their's, and as much as you try, you can't blame the US. We didn't MAKE them do anything.
Way to miss the point.
Ok, here's where your argument falls apart.
A person (or country in this case) isn't responsible for how someone else acts. A person's or countries actions in response to someone else are their responsibility, so when you claim we caused those situations, you're the one who is uneducated.
They chose their course. It may have been in reaction to what the US did, but it was STILL THEIR CHOICE. Blaming anyone else is bullshit, but typical of people who refuse responsibility for their actions.
And by the way, mighty brave throwing stones behind the AC label.
No, it's not just that. It's also your tendency to exaggerate and your obvious bias. Ignore Kashmir if you like (you never addressed why there's so much hate if Indians don't hate).
Perhaps hate was too strong (frankly, it usually is) instead we'll say "intense, irrational, dislike, and overwhelming desire to apply bias to any information about the US"
I think that is more accurate.
No, it means do some god damned work and get the resources. Save, assemble like minded people, coordinate with other groups. Do some work instead of making up entitlements.
Why do people think they are owed a medium for their ideas?
The parent addressed this very well. While you are guaranteed freedom of speech, under no circumstances are you guaranteed either the means to broadcast it, or and audience.
As it should be. Forcing someone to broadcast a message they disagree with would violate THEIR rights (speech, assembly) and so is not acceptable.
Ok, since the poor don't pay taxes, and according to you the rich get thier money back, then where the fuck does all the money come from.
Oh, me. Right.
Listen, you can hate on the rich all you want, but they pay most of the taxes. Both sides admit that.
The question has always been whether they pay ENOUGH taxes. I happen to think they do.
"And don't forget that it's the actions of the US and it's foreign policies, that have made Iran and Iraq what they are today"
Please stop attempting to spread this lie. Everything that terrorists wish to accomplish could be done through non-violent means. Many others have done it.
But somehow, the US gets blamed by people like you. I'm willing to accept we had infuence in causing the situation, but we are not responsible for the violence. That could have been avoided, but for a lack of real intellectual leadership all the way around.
You mean fear mongering, right? Play to the fears of the masses by constructing large conspiracies of action against (FILL IN THE BLANK).
So, um, how is what you're doing different?
So what? The politics heat up, and a smart company decides to get out of the way. Totally reasonable, and easy to see it happening. Not saying that's all there is to it, but it could very well just be business.
See, that's funny. I take a look at Kashmir, and I see hate all around.
Oh, shut up. He never forced anyone to buy his products, so if they are being overcharged, it's their own fault.
Alamagordo. And now you'll say "Those were TOP SECRET NIMROD!!!!"
To which I'll respond, "as top secret as a test that produces a humongous mushroom cloud and detonation in plain sight of ground level viewers can be."
5 miles from the public, by the way. Call it what you want, it was a public test.
"It was under british rule"
Then it was involved.
"US guys think that except you nobody else deserves the right to nuclear weapons"
And you think allowing unfettered acces to weapons with the potential to destroy the human race is a good idea? Or are you ALSO (like the US, Russia, China, etc) of the opinion that nuclear proliferation is bad. You can't have it both ways.
"The chance of us using a nuclear weapon in anger is no more than the US using them in anger."
This, simply stated, is a lie. The political situation in most third world countries is far less stable that in the US (despite your bias, you must admit that's true). In addition, I GUARANTEE the technology used to prevent nukes from being used in the US is FAR mor advanced and effective than that of any third world country.
But, why let reason and fact get in the way of your anti-US rant, right?
Name an international superpower that thinks proliferation is a good idea. You want to blame the US, despite the fact that there are dozens of other countries that agree. Why?
Because you have an irrational hate for the US, but probably never bothered to learn anything about it. Don't bother telling me about all you know, because your post makes it clear how little that is.