I stated my first statement simply as a matter of fact that nobody on Slashdot that has posted thus far has given any real credentials to back-up their claims of having enough education and training to diagnose somebody with a pyschological disorder.
That's not how you stated it. You said, "Nobody here is a certified psychologist". That's a lot stronger that how you've rephrased it.
The problem is that people can take 500 different medical conditions and 'believe' they can connect a person to any one of them using their completely untrained observations.
Again, he wasn't making a medical diagnosis. He believes that the guy is a sociopath. It's opinion, not fact.
This does not make them either true or insightful
It wasn't modded "insightful". It's +5 Interesting, with 100% Interesting, and NO insightful moderation. An opinion can be interesting even if it is not factual, or you don't agree with it. In this case, people found the comment interesting. This does not mean that it revealed truth to them or that they even agreed with it. It just caught their eye.
This is what I meant by 'talking out of his ass'.
Again, talking out your ass is not backing up your opinions with the information that made you arrive at that opinion. The poster states the information, and is therefore not talking out his ass.
None of the above information I have posted is an opinion.
I was going to let this go until I read this line. If you comment contained only facts, I would not be able to dispute them, which I did, and therefore your comment is not completely factual.
That's not a fact, that's an opinion. You can't say with absolute certainty that there are no psychologists that read Slashdot.
You are absolutely NOT qualified by reading a website to diagnose anyone with anything.
No, but, you can watch the interview and receive some interesting clues about Michael.
You are simply talking out of your asses.
Talking out your ass is when you don't have any material to back up your opinion. The poster you flamed stated an opinion, and provided the information that helped him arrive at that conclusion. He was not "talking out his ass".
Hey, maybe the man may simply be a self-confident baffoon who actually believes what he is saying and may not know any better.
That could very well be true. However, the parent poster felt Michael was a little too self-confident in a confrontation situation.
But, without very special training and years of actual real-world experience, no one on Slashdot is qualified to make any intelligent diagnosis about anybody.
Again, we can state an opinion. The parent poster felt that Michael was too calm during the interview not to be a sociopath. He was not trying to make an accurate diagnosis of Michael's state of mind. The poster just found it hard to believe the man was not sociopathic. There was no medical claims involved (i.e. he didn't say, "I've diagnosed Michael as a sociopath"). It was an opinion based on what was seen in the interview, nothing more. The reason that this poster's comment was modded up so high is because of the way the opinion was stated and the infomation that the poster provided to arrive at his opinion.
I'm not trying to be a bitch or anything, I just think you were being a little hard on the guy.
you wont take advice not to drive when high, from someone who used to smoke pot (because they used to smoke pot)
You got it. That was the point. I forgot the "<sarcasm>" tags, sorry.
Re:Question...
on
Melting Europa
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
There's intelligent life here on earth *now* and we're letting it go without clean water, medical care, housing and adequete education
You can help save intelligent life here on Earth by donating to the World Food Programme. The World Food Programme's donation page is here.
Incidentally, the U.S. Government is the largest donor:
In 2000, the USA was the most substantial donor, with more than US$796 million given to WFP activities. Japan was the second largest contributor, with almost US$260 million donated over the same period, followed by the European Commission with US$118 million.
Oh well, I'm sure we can get the money from the defence piggy-bank... right, guys?
The Department of Health and Human Services received about 501 billion dollars in 2003 compared with the 388 billion that the Department of Defense received. Look here.
If you're in the U.S. and want to do more to help locally right now, try here. Remember, there are people in your local community that are suffering just as much as other people around the world. If we all help locally, we all help globally.
nowadays a lot of the Styrofoam-like material used for package peanuts is made from starch. it dissolves in water pretty quickly.
They're also edible obviously, though they don't have much taste. It's fun to open a package that just arrived by UPS in front of your co-workers and start snacking on the "styrofoam" peanuts. All you have to do is keep a straight face while doing it, and when they look back at you in pure horror, just innocently say, "What? Oh, sorry. Want some?"
Internet Standard #1 (currently RFC-3600 - November 2003) lists TCP as being Standard #7, which is outlined in RFC-793.
RFC-793 was published in September 1981. In other words, we are still using the 1981 edition of TCP. RFC-793 contains the following note from Jon Postel:
This document is based on six earlier editions of the ARPA Internet Protocol Specification, and the present text draws heavily from them.
In addition, the RFC index lists RFC-675 (December 1974) as, "The first detailed specification of TCP".
Thus, Dr. Rhee is a little bit off in his assesment.
Why pay for a second election if it isn't going to change the results?
Well, that's the question isn't it? How does anybody know right now that some people weren't prevented from voting for the candidate of their choice, because the wrong ballot was shown? I think that's cause enough to invalidate this whole election.
Ah, but do you trust anyone that comes up and claims their vote was miscounted?
You don't need to. They know they got more voter turnout in some precincts than are actually possible for that precinct.
Without an audit trail, there is no way to prove the votes are correct, but there's no way to prove the reverse either.
In this case, the audit trail consists of the precinct numbers the volunteers gave out when compared to what precinct the voter is actually listed in. In other words, there's enough of an audit trial to warrant certain precincts having a re-vote.
This is one of those times when I think that rights of the people have been seriously infringed upon, but no one wants to do anything about it.
The real question is: Why were these people allowed to vote in areas they aren't permitted to?
They weren't. They were improperly enabled to vote in the wrong precinct. From the article:
5,500 voters had their ballots tabulated for the wrong precincts.
Election officials acknowledged that poll workers provided some voters incorrect access codes that caused them to vote in the wrong legislative districts but said there was no evidence yet that any result was in jeopardy.
Several workers who handled this stage of the process -- including some who said they didn't know more than one precinct had been assigned to their polling place -- gave voters codes for the wrong precincts, causing the wrong ballots to appear on their screens.
To successfully challenge the outcome of an election, losing candidates would have to prove in court that the problem was so widespread it probably changed the outcome of the election, said Fred Woocher, a Santa Monica election law attorney.
Why does this have to be up to the candidates? Clearly by the mere fact that incorrect ballots were being shown, the people were not properly given the ability to vote for the candidate of their choice. Their choice may have not even been on the ballot, since many people were shown ballots for other precincts. Shouldn't this automatically trigger a "do-over"?
The curator said that "five hundred people" before me had asked the same question, and that he had never been able to figure out the answer.
Yet another example of someone not doing their job right. It usually helps to have an answer for frequently asked questions when giving tours. This makes the tour more enjoyable for, oh I don't know, the people on the tour!
Slashdot Mirror
That's not how you stated it. You said, "Nobody here is a certified psychologist". That's a lot stronger that how you've rephrased it.
The problem is that people can take 500 different medical conditions and 'believe' they can connect a person to any one of them using their completely untrained observations.
Again, he wasn't making a medical diagnosis. He believes that the guy is a sociopath. It's opinion, not fact.
This does not make them either true or insightful
It wasn't modded "insightful". It's +5 Interesting, with 100% Interesting, and NO insightful moderation. An opinion can be interesting even if it is not factual, or you don't agree with it. In this case, people found the comment interesting. This does not mean that it revealed truth to them or that they even agreed with it. It just caught their eye.
This is what I meant by 'talking out of his ass'.
Again, talking out your ass is not backing up your opinions with the information that made you arrive at that opinion. The poster states the information, and is therefore not talking out his ass.
None of the above information I have posted is an opinion.
I was going to let this go until I read this line. If you comment contained only facts, I would not be able to dispute them, which I did, and therefore your comment is not completely factual.
You're kidding, right? It happens all the time. Try Google.
The author presented overwhelming evidence that it was a scam, and then told you to draw your own conclusions.
That's called satire. Get it now?
That's not a fact, that's an opinion. You can't say with absolute certainty that there are no psychologists that read Slashdot.
You are absolutely NOT qualified by reading a website to diagnose anyone with anything.
No, but, you can watch the interview and receive some interesting clues about Michael.
You are simply talking out of your asses.
Talking out your ass is when you don't have any material to back up your opinion. The poster you flamed stated an opinion, and provided the information that helped him arrive at that conclusion. He was not "talking out his ass".
Hey, maybe the man may simply be a self-confident baffoon who actually believes what he is saying and may not know any better.
That could very well be true. However, the parent poster felt Michael was a little too self-confident in a confrontation situation.
But, without very special training and years of actual real-world experience, no one on Slashdot is qualified to make any intelligent diagnosis about anybody.
Again, we can state an opinion. The parent poster felt that Michael was too calm during the interview not to be a sociopath. He was not trying to make an accurate diagnosis of Michael's state of mind. The poster just found it hard to believe the man was not sociopathic. There was no medical claims involved (i.e. he didn't say, "I've diagnosed Michael as a sociopath"). It was an opinion based on what was seen in the interview, nothing more. The reason that this poster's comment was modded up so high is because of the way the opinion was stated and the infomation that the poster provided to arrive at his opinion.
I'm not trying to be a bitch or anything, I just think you were being a little hard on the guy.
Isn't it Michael Jackson that is corrupting today's youth?
I'll leave now...
I have to remember to put my posts inside <joke_not_real> tags.
You got it. That was the point. I forgot the "<sarcasm>" tags, sorry.
You can help save intelligent life here on Earth by donating to the World Food Programme. The World Food Programme's donation page is here.
Incidentally, the U.S. Government is the largest donor:
Oh well, I'm sure we can get the money from the defence piggy-bank... right, guys?
The Department of Health and Human Services received about 501 billion dollars in 2003 compared with the 388 billion that the Department of Defense received. Look here.
If you're in the U.S. and want to do more to help locally right now, try here. Remember, there are people in your local community that are suffering just as much as other people around the world. If we all help locally, we all help globally.
Well, I'm not going to believe a pothead. I still think it's safe to drive under the influence of pot.
They're also edible obviously, though they don't have much taste. It's fun to open a package that just arrived by UPS in front of your co-workers and start snacking on the "styrofoam" peanuts. All you have to do is keep a straight face while doing it, and when they look back at you in pure horror, just innocently say, "What? Oh, sorry. Want some?"
There's already a colon on the keyboard. Oh, wait...
Internet Standard #1 (currently RFC-3600 - November 2003) lists TCP as being Standard #7, which is outlined in RFC-793. RFC-793 was published in September 1981. In other words, we are still using the 1981 edition of TCP. RFC-793 contains the following note from Jon Postel:
In addition, the RFC index lists RFC-675 (December 1974) as, "The first detailed specification of TCP".Thus, Dr. Rhee is a little bit off in his assesment.
This is probably why there aren't a lot of posts to this article, yet. Every Slashdot reader is frantically trying to order "boradband".
Or else...
You may be taking out grandma's computer in Birmingham that has got a 100-year-old cookie recipe that has not been backed up.
Okay, now they're crossing the line. You mess with Granny's Lucious Cookies, and you're in for it. This means war!
Well, that's the question isn't it? How does anybody know right now that some people weren't prevented from voting for the candidate of their choice, because the wrong ballot was shown? I think that's cause enough to invalidate this whole election.
You don't need to. They know they got more voter turnout in some precincts than are actually possible for that precinct.
Without an audit trail, there is no way to prove the votes are correct, but there's no way to prove the reverse either.
In this case, the audit trail consists of the precinct numbers the volunteers gave out when compared to what precinct the voter is actually listed in. In other words, there's enough of an audit trial to warrant certain precincts having a re-vote.
This is one of those times when I think that rights of the people have been seriously infringed upon, but no one wants to do anything about it.
They weren't. They were improperly enabled to vote in the wrong precinct. From the article:
We care. FAQs are here: Federal Election Commission
Why does this have to be up to the candidates? Clearly by the mere fact that incorrect ballots were being shown, the people were not properly given the ability to vote for the candidate of their choice. Their choice may have not even been on the ballot, since many people were shown ballots for other precincts. Shouldn't this automatically trigger a "do-over"?
Why would anybody on Slashdot be concerned about that?
Oh, wait...
Yet another example of someone not doing their job right. It usually helps to have an answer for frequently asked questions when giving tours. This makes the tour more enjoyable for, oh I don't know, the people on the tour!
It was the Bunny Thing. Opportunity's next. Oh no!
Say, what is on display at WalMart?
Oh yeah, these.
My mom thought it would be a good idea to get that for me for Christmas one year.
Bitch.