Mr. Kristopeit has a history of seeking out intelligent posters and trying to provoke them by posting logically flawed responses, then moving on to inane rubbish and, if you persevere, insults. In a perverse kind of way, his bothering people is a compliment as it shows that they're the sort of sensible thoughtful poster he just can't stand and is compelled to troll.
Perhaps it amuses him, perhaps he is frustrated and wants revenge at his intellectual betters, or perhaps he is unhinged in some way. Regardless, his masterful sibling post "ur mum's face insist on being a retard" says everything you need to know about the guy.
I think you'll find most of them are workers related to the project stopping by to see the big event. It's not everyday the robot you've worked on for years is packaged for flight into space. It's a big event for them, so I can't blame them for wanting to be a part of the last step. Remember, they'll probably never see the robot again, so it's only fitting they turn out for its send-off.
Well, in fact, it's not that simple. I worked for a time with an engineer who did exactly that - balloons and apparatus for radio astronomy. He often told me of how complex and dangerous this process is. This is hardly the first launch mishap of a radio astronomy balloon, and it won't be the last.
Even with the very best balloon design, the very best tethers and the very best launch protocol, if the wind turns on you unexpectedly, everything can be lost in an instant. This crash wasn't negligence or even direct human error in design or execution, it's just a confluence of things (some foreseeable, some not) that lead to a failure. It happens, especially in experimental work.
I don't know why TFS is contrasting the accident report to a soldier being ordered to delete footage - what does this have to do with the story?. After all, it's not like NASA has a history of erasing important footage or data.
Of course, not everybody agrees with the nature of the eucharist - there's substantiation, trans-substantiation and consubstantiation, the list goes on. Not everybody takes it literally; no more than everybody believes that Mary was holy or not.
I agree with the idea of lighting that follows day/night cycles (unless your guys are working shifts). There's nothing that messes me up worse than going to work (in my windowless laboratory) in the morning and experiencing constant lighting until I walk outside and it's suddenly dark. It messes up my sleep cycles.
That's not an air-tight defense everywhere, though. In Australia (for instance) true but otherwise libelous statements must be proven to be 'in the public interest'. Here, truth alone does not make it ok to say certain things about people.
Maybe they should? Maybe if the terrorists realise that we're all people too, just trying to get by, they'll understand that we're not their enemy. It's the few people in power who drive and profit from foreign policy, and for the most part they're fucking us over too.
Ah... having read that statement in the context of TFA, it's clear the GP was correct. The student mistakes writing the assignment for "being a terrorist". My bad.
FTFA: "There is a difference between being a terrorist and learning about terrorism." - quote from Student in the class who got this assignment.
To me, that simply means that all her class work went in one ear and out the other. Total head buried in the sand mentality if you ask me.
Can you please explain why you feel this statement suggest the student hasn't grasped the substance of the lesson? It sounds to me like the student is quite correct: knowing about terrorism doesn't mean you're going to commit acts of terror anymore than knowing about WWII means you're going to invade Poland.
And you know what? We should have students thinking about exactly those kinds of things. They would gain more insight into what make some societies dysfunctional. Such instruction would come with discussion of the ethical implications of all those acts - as is the case with any social studies course. Certainly, by thinking about potential threats, what makes a threat credible and what can be done to reduce risks, students learn to cope with a world in which the TSA thinks binary explosives are dangerous but lets any fool take a laptop full of explosive batteries onto a plane.
Slashdot Mirror
The undead guys?
Mr. Kristopeit has a history of seeking out intelligent posters and trying to provoke them by posting logically flawed responses, then moving on to inane rubbish and, if you persevere, insults. In a perverse kind of way, his bothering people is a compliment as it shows that they're the sort of sensible thoughtful poster he just can't stand and is compelled to troll.
Perhaps it amuses him, perhaps he is frustrated and wants revenge at his intellectual betters, or perhaps he is unhinged in some way. Regardless, his masterful sibling post "ur mum's face insist on being a retard" says everything you need to know about the guy.
I think you'll find most of them are workers related to the project stopping by to see the big event. It's not everyday the robot you've worked on for years is packaged for flight into space. It's a big event for them, so I can't blame them for wanting to be a part of the last step. Remember, they'll probably never see the robot again, so it's only fitting they turn out for its send-off.
Hiring low-cost human workers just denies honest, hard-working robots employment. We must crackdown on the underground human job market!
Well, in fact, it's not that simple. I worked for a time with an engineer who did exactly that - balloons and apparatus for radio astronomy. He often told me of how complex and dangerous this process is. This is hardly the first launch mishap of a radio astronomy balloon, and it won't be the last.
Even with the very best balloon design, the very best tethers and the very best launch protocol, if the wind turns on you unexpectedly, everything can be lost in an instant. This crash wasn't negligence or even direct human error in design or execution, it's just a confluence of things (some foreseeable, some not) that lead to a failure. It happens, especially in experimental work.
I don't know why TFS is contrasting the accident report to a soldier being ordered to delete footage - what does this have to do with the story?. After all, it's not like NASA has a history of erasing important footage or data.
Sir, my hat off to you.
It's the adjectival form of datum, duh.
Yup, which totally explains evils like rape and mollestation.
I'm sure there is something on the books for "destroying a national treasure"
Bravo. That just says it all.
Of course, not everybody agrees with the nature of the eucharist - there's substantiation, trans-substantiation and consubstantiation, the list goes on. Not everybody takes it literally; no more than everybody believes that Mary was holy or not.
"Alien Jesus" - best name for a cover band, ever
sole criteria
So in order to have a soul, you have to fulfill the sole criteria?
"Sole criteria," get it?
Thank you, thank you. I'll be here all week.
Oh for mod points - fellow rotorhead here. There's so much that could have gone wrong. Without more info it's just speculation at best.
I agree with the idea of lighting that follows day/night cycles (unless your guys are working shifts). There's nothing that messes me up worse than going to work (in my windowless laboratory) in the morning and experiencing constant lighting until I walk outside and it's suddenly dark. It messes up my sleep cycles.
Ack, I fail - meant to reply to the comment below this: #33483590 I hang my head in shame and await down-moderation.
I'm sure glad they come with a convenient, obvious self-destruct mechanism. No way that could go wrong. No sir.
That's not an air-tight defense everywhere, though. In Australia (for instance) true but otherwise libelous statements must be proven to be 'in the public interest'. Here, truth alone does not make it ok to say certain things about people.
Maybe they should? Maybe if the terrorists realise that we're all people too, just trying to get by, they'll understand that we're not their enemy. It's the few people in power who drive and profit from foreign policy, and for the most part they're fucking us over too.
Ah... having read that statement in the context of TFA, it's clear the GP was correct. The student mistakes writing the assignment for "being a terrorist". My bad.
And wow. That's a really dumb student.
Brick Arms
You're welcome.
FTFA: "There is a difference between being a terrorist and learning about terrorism." - quote from Student in the class who got this assignment. To me, that simply means that all her class work went in one ear and out the other. Total head buried in the sand mentality if you ask me.
Can you please explain why you feel this statement suggest the student hasn't grasped the substance of the lesson? It sounds to me like the student is quite correct: knowing about terrorism doesn't mean you're going to commit acts of terror anymore than knowing about WWII means you're going to invade Poland.
And you know what? We should have students thinking about exactly those kinds of things. They would gain more insight into what make some societies dysfunctional. Such instruction would come with discussion of the ethical implications of all those acts - as is the case with any social studies course. Certainly, by thinking about potential threats, what makes a threat credible and what can be done to reduce risks, students learn to cope with a world in which the TSA thinks binary explosives are dangerous but lets any fool take a laptop full of explosive batteries onto a plane.
Isn't there a thing in the constitution about cruel or unusual punishment?
Citation needed