Didn't Plato explicitly state his account described a fictional utopic civilization?
Here's the situation. Atlantis is described in two fictional dialogues by Plato -- the Timaeus and its sequel, the Critias. In these dialogues, a character, Critias, gives a story, which he says he received from his grandfather (also named Critias, which is not unusual for the Greeks), who received it from his father, Dropides, who received it from the famed (and mysterious) Solon, who received it from an "old priest" in a city called Sa-is in Egypt, who says this 9000-year-old account of Atlantis is from unspecified "records".
So, no, the account is not explicitly described as fictional -- but, the dialogue itself, in which the story is given, is fictional, and Plato describes the story's origins as obscure and its transmission as winding.
Morals are a part of my job (what job do you do where you don't have to be moral?), but I don't think I should have to let you know with whom I'm sleeping, unless there be some wider standard where everyone is bound to divulge such info (because I don't see privacy in and of itself valuable, perhaps unlike most).
Pretty much all of the 9/11 hijackers came together, trained, and organised in Afghanistan, which is where Osama bin Laden, the head of the group, and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the plot, had their base of operations.
Obama was born in Hawaii and raised in Indonesia, but if was trying to find members of the Obama administration, I probably wouldn't first go to either of those places to look for them.
"And it's not really being an 'extremist nutjob' to hate the US because they blew up your house and killed your family. That's just perfectly normal hatred."
About whom are you talking? You're not referring to any 9/11 hijackers, nor the shoe bomber, nor the Christmas day bomber, because their houses were not blown up, nor were their families killed by the US.
"I eat a lot of beef and pork on a regular basis and still don't come close to the national average for meat consumption, which is pretty disturbing."
I would make a small bet that the national average for meat consumption per capita is calculated something like the following: (Total amount produced + total amount imported - total amount exported) / population. That doesn't take into account the amount wasted (which is probably massive), the amount fed to other animals, and the amount rendered into products that you may or may not know are animal products.
I'm fairly sure that if people started voting for those candidates, those votes would probably be counted, instant run-off or not. In Canada there are usually more than two candidates in any riding and no instant run-off voting. In my riding it was a close race between three different candidates -- Liberal, Conservative and NDP -- the NDP won.
I think I agree with the grandparent more -- as it relates to politics, the majority of people consume mainstream media almost exclusively (read: Viacom, National Amusements, Time Warner, Disney, News Corp.) and so, lo and behold, they vote for mainstream candidates (read: Democrats, Republicans).
"Of course he's responsible for the actions of the administration while he's president"
That is one reason why it is "Obama wants". For the generally same reason, that is why there were phrases similar to "Bush wants" for eight years. It is called parity. You would be changing the goal posts. For eight years any action of the Bush administration could be described as an action favoured by Bush himself. It has become a standard. You now propose changing the standard, which hardly seems fair.
"As for truth: little things like hushed up friendly fire that cost allies (Canadians) lives. The canadians are sorta pissed about that, as they should be."
How do the documents constitute proof that friendly fire killed the Canadian soldiers in the incident? The Canadian military still maintains in face of the one document which reports that that it was enemy actions which killed the soldiers. A report which contradicts another report does not mean the latter is wrong: It could also be that the former is wrong. And then where do you get the "hushed up" from at all?
It would be about as easy to kill a pregnant stepmother while she sleeps with an axe as it would be with a gun. In fact, it might be harder to do it with the gun for me because I wouldn't know where the safety is nor how to load the weapon though I'm sure I could figure it out.
I just have to add. Your standard is poor in a more serious way than I alluded to in my previous post. We are talking about the value of the artifact (movies in this case) itself, not the value of impact of the movie or something else. But on your system, what you consider the value of the movie changes based on things external to the movie, so it just fails to be a standard of the value of the movie itself at all. It's only if a great number of people watch some movie wherefore you consider that movie to be good. Conversely, if a movie is unpopular, then it is not good, according to you. But a movie is no different whether it is popular or unpopular. A movie could be made and absolutely no one could watch it in its final cut: It could be sealed in a vault. But the movie would be no different if the vault was opened and subsequently watched by all. In the vault case, the movie is no good according to you, but, taken out of the vault and watched as such, it is good. But it's the same movie in both cases, so clearly your standard of taste fails to take in account the movie itself by itself.
How do you figure that popularity is an objective measurement of quality? You have no idea how it came to be popular. It could have been chosen to be consumed by the population on purely subjective grounds and so then it would not be objective at all.
When there is something wrong with your knee, do you hold some sort of poll and get the majority's opinion of what should be done, or do you go to an expert, i.e., a medical doctor? The medical profession is definitely cliquish and classist, but not very arrogant nor bullshitting you. It's not necessarily arrogant to claim to know more than someone else.
100% means you cannot improve the work at all. For closing trees or providing counter interpretations in a symbolic logic course, that is indeed possible. But for a course where you write essays in a short slot of time (sometimes as short as two weeks), I think it is highly unlikely that you could not find some improvement that could be made to the work. Even the smallest clarification would be an improvement.
Someone mentioned above that so much has changed over time that it is basically impossible to discern with assurance the causes, exactly as they are, of such a decline in creativity, without much more in testing. This is no doubt true.
However, I would still offer a view that, in large, attitudes today not very congenial to fostering creativity. This goes deeper than any one policy or practice. This is because many people believe that there is very little that can be done to foster creativity at all, and that creativity is vastly more innate rather than it is developable.
This brings with it the belief that training children in music or poetry is futile, and so, with the first sign of resistance on the part of the child to learning either, the parent gives up. Parents will put more effort into getting children to clean their rooms than they will in having them learn to sing or play an instrument.
So also it brings the the holding of bad art in high repute, because the artists who develop their work are disregarded, because their work is not recognised as being any more creative than those who present only the most basic forms, and indeed it is regarded as restrained or stuffy. So, generally young artists are lionised in today's media, and their styles hold sway. (This is not to say that young people cannot make good art, just that it is harder and less likely for them to make art as good a person's who has had more time to develop).
You actually don't have that choice, unless you infringe their terms, which say, "You will not provide any false personal information on Facebook, or create an account for anyone other than yourself without permission".
Talk to an adult who has studied ESL part-time for two years, you can pretty much have a full-on conversation with him. Talk to a four-year-old who lives in a bilingual French-English household (or whatever) and try to have a conversation with him. It is painful, unless you really like kids. He can tell you only the most basic things. The things is, is that people hold kids and adults to different standards. If a four-year-old can tell you his name, age, how he likes soccer, and what colours his clothes are, then he is considered proficient in the language in which he spoke. But guess what: any adult of normal mental development can reach such a level of proficiency in a language within months of dedicated study along with immersion, never mind four years.
Slashdot Mirror
Not really. It would be fair to say that Atlantis is described as a utopia at first, but then declined.
Here's the situation. Atlantis is described in two fictional dialogues by Plato -- the Timaeus and its sequel, the Critias. In these dialogues, a character, Critias, gives a story, which he says he received from his grandfather (also named Critias, which is not unusual for the Greeks), who received it from his father, Dropides, who received it from the famed (and mysterious) Solon, who received it from an "old priest" in a city called Sa-is in Egypt, who says this 9000-year-old account of Atlantis is from unspecified "records".
So, no, the account is not explicitly described as fictional -- but, the dialogue itself, in which the story is given, is fictional, and Plato describes the story's origins as obscure and its transmission as winding.
Morals are a part of my job (what job do you do where you don't have to be moral?), but I don't think I should have to let you know with whom I'm sleeping, unless there be some wider standard where everyone is bound to divulge such info (because I don't see privacy in and of itself valuable, perhaps unlike most).
I just spent $2150 for nothing...
This bitrate calculator tells me that 4K Digital Cinema can be recorded uncompressed at a little less than 500MB/s. That would give let you shoot at that format, at 1Gb/2s, for 4000 seconds, which doesn't seem like a pitiful length of time. What would the problem be?
So, hypothetical terrorists different from the actual ones on whom the TSA has based their policies (the subject of this story)?
Pretty much all of the 9/11 hijackers came together, trained, and organised in Afghanistan, which is where Osama bin Laden, the head of the group, and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the plot, had their base of operations.
Obama was born in Hawaii and raised in Indonesia, but if was trying to find members of the Obama administration, I probably wouldn't first go to either of those places to look for them.
"And it's not really being an 'extremist nutjob' to hate the US because they blew up your house and killed your family. That's just perfectly normal hatred."
About whom are you talking? You're not referring to any 9/11 hijackers, nor the shoe bomber, nor the Christmas day bomber, because their houses were not blown up, nor were their families killed by the US.
In the form of an erection.
"I eat a lot of beef and pork on a regular basis and still don't come close to the national average for meat consumption, which is pretty disturbing."
I would make a small bet that the national average for meat consumption per capita is calculated something like the following: (Total amount produced + total amount imported - total amount exported) / population. That doesn't take into account the amount wasted (which is probably massive), the amount fed to other animals, and the amount rendered into products that you may or may not know are animal products.
"I already dropped cable for dsl" ... "my generation [does] not need landlines"
?
Only $2150.00 to do it yourself.
I'm fairly sure that if people started voting for those candidates, those votes would probably be counted, instant run-off or not. In Canada there are usually more than two candidates in any riding and no instant run-off voting. In my riding it was a close race between three different candidates -- Liberal, Conservative and NDP -- the NDP won.
I think I agree with the grandparent more -- as it relates to politics, the majority of people consume mainstream media almost exclusively (read: Viacom, National Amusements, Time Warner, Disney, News Corp.) and so, lo and behold, they vote for mainstream candidates (read: Democrats, Republicans).
"Of course he's responsible for the actions of the administration while he's president"
That is one reason why it is "Obama wants". For the generally same reason, that is why there were phrases similar to "Bush wants" for eight years. It is called parity. You would be changing the goal posts. For eight years any action of the Bush administration could be described as an action favoured by Bush himself. It has become a standard. You now propose changing the standard, which hardly seems fair.
Since we like links on Slashdot:
Bush Wants Right to ISP Customer Data
Bush Demands Amnesty for Spying Telecoms
Bush Wants an Unhackable Private Network
I shall leave the compiling of more examples as an exercise for the reader.
You'll probably have to research Monarchy, and also have a source of grapes.
"As for truth: little things like hushed up friendly fire that cost allies (Canadians) lives. The canadians are sorta pissed about that, as they should be."
How do the documents constitute proof that friendly fire killed the Canadian soldiers in the incident? The Canadian military still maintains in face of the one document which reports that that it was enemy actions which killed the soldiers. A report which contradicts another report does not mean the latter is wrong: It could also be that the former is wrong. And then where do you get the "hushed up" from at all?
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/07/26/wikileak-afghanistan-canada-soldiers.html
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/07/28/wikileaks-friendly-fire-parents-reaction.html
That last story says a parent is angry at the Wikileaks-supplied report, not at the official story.
It would be about as easy to kill a pregnant stepmother while she sleeps with an axe as it would be with a gun. In fact, it might be harder to do it with the gun for me because I wouldn't know where the safety is nor how to load the weapon though I'm sure I could figure it out.
I just have to add. Your standard is poor in a more serious way than I alluded to in my previous post. We are talking about the value of the artifact (movies in this case) itself, not the value of impact of the movie or something else. But on your system, what you consider the value of the movie changes based on things external to the movie, so it just fails to be a standard of the value of the movie itself at all. It's only if a great number of people watch some movie wherefore you consider that movie to be good. Conversely, if a movie is unpopular, then it is not good, according to you. But a movie is no different whether it is popular or unpopular. A movie could be made and absolutely no one could watch it in its final cut: It could be sealed in a vault. But the movie would be no different if the vault was opened and subsequently watched by all. In the vault case, the movie is no good according to you, but, taken out of the vault and watched as such, it is good. But it's the same movie in both cases, so clearly your standard of taste fails to take in account the movie itself by itself.
How do you figure that popularity is an objective measurement of quality? You have no idea how it came to be popular. It could have been chosen to be consumed by the population on purely subjective grounds and so then it would not be objective at all.
When there is something wrong with your knee, do you hold some sort of poll and get the majority's opinion of what should be done, or do you go to an expert, i.e., a medical doctor? The medical profession is definitely cliquish and classist, but not very arrogant nor bullshitting you. It's not necessarily arrogant to claim to know more than someone else.
100% means you cannot improve the work at all. For closing trees or providing counter interpretations in a symbolic logic course, that is indeed possible. But for a course where you write essays in a short slot of time (sometimes as short as two weeks), I think it is highly unlikely that you could not find some improvement that could be made to the work. Even the smallest clarification would be an improvement.
Someone mentioned above that so much has changed over time that it is basically impossible to discern with assurance the causes, exactly as they are, of such a decline in creativity, without much more in testing. This is no doubt true.
However, I would still offer a view that, in large, attitudes today not very congenial to fostering creativity. This goes deeper than any one policy or practice. This is because many people believe that there is very little that can be done to foster creativity at all, and that creativity is vastly more innate rather than it is developable.
This brings with it the belief that training children in music or poetry is futile, and so, with the first sign of resistance on the part of the child to learning either, the parent gives up. Parents will put more effort into getting children to clean their rooms than they will in having them learn to sing or play an instrument.
So also it brings the the holding of bad art in high repute, because the artists who develop their work are disregarded, because their work is not recognised as being any more creative than those who present only the most basic forms, and indeed it is regarded as restrained or stuffy. So, generally young artists are lionised in today's media, and their styles hold sway. (This is not to say that young people cannot make good art, just that it is harder and less likely for them to make art as good a person's who has had more time to develop).
They already have giga- which is taken from the names of the giants of Ancient Greek mythology.
You actually don't have that choice, unless you infringe their terms, which say, "You will not provide any false personal information on Facebook, or create an account for anyone other than yourself without permission".
Firewire is still used for amateur and field audio recording.
Talk to an adult who has studied ESL part-time for two years, you can pretty much have a full-on conversation with him. Talk to a four-year-old who lives in a bilingual French-English household (or whatever) and try to have a conversation with him. It is painful, unless you really like kids. He can tell you only the most basic things. The things is, is that people hold kids and adults to different standards. If a four-year-old can tell you his name, age, how he likes soccer, and what colours his clothes are, then he is considered proficient in the language in which he spoke. But guess what: any adult of normal mental development can reach such a level of proficiency in a language within months of dedicated study along with immersion, never mind four years.