I completely get it. There are people who simply do not believe a specific claim of science. They were convinced of the counter claims the same way 90% of the people are convinced of the scientific claims, someone told them who appeared to be authoritative in the matter. Very few people have the resources or skills to replicate the vast majority of scientific discoveries so until they see it in use or have it explained to them by some authority in the matter, they have to trust someone. That does not make them anti-science, it makes them skeptical about a claim. They could very well believe and understand all the other science claims out there.
Like I said, stop playing Bush, it's not a with us or against us situation.
Just because someone expresses doubt about a scientific claim doesn't mean they are anti-science. Stop playing Bush, this is not an "either you are with us or against us" life we live.
First off, "damaging" and "embarrassing" are not crimes. I just thought I'd point this out since you mentioned the idea more than once. And if information is being freely given to donors, then it certainly isn't secret.
Then the only thing wrong in Watergate was the break in right? I mean that is what they would have found at best, damaging and embarrassing in the watergate break ins. They shared the information with their donors too. In fact, that was what the prostitution ring was supposed to have been about, they coordinated prostitutes to sleep with donors and certain congress critters in order to get support for their guy.
Secondly, if you really don't understand the practical difference between trespassing and theft, then your opinion on anyone's crimes is probably less than insightful.
Perhaps you don't know what watergate was? It was about more then tresspass or theft. To boil it down to that sort of makes my entire point. If the rest doesn't matter, then it isn't as bad as people are making it out to be.
Lastly, I assume you were referring to Romney's comments about 47% of Americans being unwilling to take personal responsibility for their lives. That wasn't a strategy, it was the kind of unfounded nonsense that plutocrats tell each other when they think the hoi polloi aren't listening.
lol.. To you have a comprehension problem or something? Romney's comment was how he was going to spend the contributions- he wasn't going to bother with the other 47% because they will never vote for him, they will never take responsibility for themselves. If that is not strategy, I do not know what it. I mean catering your campaign to specific people and not certain people for whatever reason is nothing but strategy. Maybe you should go troll somewhere else? The 47% comment was made completely about how he was going to spend the donations they gave and why. That is strategy plain and simple.
I think you will have a very difficult time trying to convince anyone that an app like a web browser or email client has an intended primary purpose of inviting virus and trojans into a computer so others can access your computer resources and send information as if they were you. On the other hand, that is specifically what you are doing when installing one of these darknet clients.
This is not about someone accessing your internet without your explicit permission. This is about you explicitly allowing the communications. In Germany, it is already illegal to not secure your wireless. The only thing stupid in this is you trying to conflate an involuntary act with a purposely committed act. I suspect you know this as well which is why you didn't bother logging into an account to post.
Well, in one case, the information is subversively being given by a con- a simple misrepresentation of person and intent. In the other, it's breaking and entering or as the law would claim, searching without a warrant which can be legal in certain limited situations. Up until recently, the thing that made it so important was the fact that campaign strategy was accessible. No one was ever caught with it, nor was any of it offered as evidence. It's one of the rare cases where a cop breaks the law and gets busted like normal people would. There are tons of instances where cops illegally search places and do not even get a slap on their wrist.
There isn't much more difference between the two other then how it happened. Breaking and entering or conning your way to access. It is probably an interesting debate that should be had. I mean was Nixon really that bad when the FBI broke into a building or what Nixon bad because they gained access to secrete campaign strategy that wouldn't have had access to. Is getting access to this secrete campaign strategy still something that is bad, or is it par for the course and we need to stop demonizing Nixon.
No one ever showed Nixon committed crimes. He was pardoned before any trial or real insight to them happened. I know it's popular to claim he was a crooks, but even the real crooks claim Nixon wasn't involved and all but one claim they were going after evidence of a prostitution ring. IT should be noted, two of the agents behind the break ins were then and are still now democrats, only one of them claimed Nixon sent them or it was anything pertaining to the election. The only thing left is a gap in a recording that congress demanded- but it seems like the presidents of any party claims executive privilege all the time now so that's sort of a wash.
However, I find what happened, the FBI broke into the campaign headquarters to be little different then the current practice of democrat operatives infiltrating republican fund raisers and video or audio taping the strategies then releasing what they think might be damaging to the public.
What I'm getting at is not that Nixon was innocent or anything. It's just that there is enough plausible deniability and current situations are so close to those, it doesn't seem like any crime happened. I mean what is the difference other then technical when someone pretends to be a donor in order to gather campaign information that is secrete or embarrassing and breaking into an office for the same?
Read the summary. Can you manage to get to the end of the first sentence?
"fustakrakich writes with news that a boat powered only by its sails has reached speeds of 100km/h for the first time."
You didn't say the article sumery, you said "whereas the other article goes for the simple and wrong strategy of conflating first Class B vessel to 100 km/hr with first in all classes to 100 km/hr." The other article which I correctly quoted from made a specific claim about a specific condition and was a specific response to the other article claim. The headline, while inaccurate, is more incomplete then inaccurate if it is even inaccurate. It is the first time a vessel powered only by sails has reached those speeds in a 500 km course according to a certain organization's certification.
This sentence is wrong. Ok? Wrong, based on the very records page they link to. You personally may try to claim they're referring to that particular boat reaching 100kph for the first time, but that would be wrong too since they've been posting 100kph+ times for a week.
Read the fucking article, it's right in there. I'm not trying to claim anything other then what they claimed. It seems you are the one with the problem in reality not me. Are you claiming the article referenced does not say what it says?
It is common among pedants when losing on the facts to switch to attacking the messenger. Find a mirror.
If you say so. It appears you would be trying to do it. Look, I seriously do not know what to tell you. You said the other article, I read it, it says it was the first, now you want to claim you were talking about the story submission. I cannot read you mind and anticipate your failings in communications not can I be expected to answer to something you did not say. Like I said before slow down a bit and focus on comprehending what you are reading and thinks about what you are actually saying.
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. The kite is attached to the rider, not the board. Push/pull vs. center of mass has nothing to do with the classification.
Sigh,
The rider is attached to the board making the kite tethered to the board. The important part here is how it is fixed means it requires more or less materials and the kite-board can be way less by design. This means less weight is being pulled through the water, less of a craft is in the water also meaning less resistance. It is easier to get a kite board up to higher speeds because of simple physics. I said nothing about classification other then the differences between a kite board and a sail boat is significant when at those speeds. It's like comparing the speed of a motorcycle and car with the same horse power motors in them. They are both vehicles, they are both motor-vehicles, but one doesn't have the weight advantages the other has.
The gizmag article does a good job of covering it, whereas the other article goes for the simple and wrong strategy of conflating first Class B vessel to 100 km/hr with first in all classes to 100 km/hr.
I think your problem is a different argument then what was made. The register statement said it was recognized by the World Sailing Speed Record Council as the first class B vessel doing it in a 500 meter course. This is a specific statement detailing a specific claim with specific conditions. I would have assumed someone as pedant as you insisting that tethered to the rider who is tethered to a board is somehow different from being tethered to the board would have picked up on the specifics of it. Please slow down and think about what was said then think about what you are going to say..
Eugenics was based on principles of plant biology and its evolution and extended well beyond race. It was the scientific rage at the time and started with observations by Gregor Johann Mendel who was studying evolution of strains of the pea plant.
As I said, look up the scientific theory of Eugenics. You will find quite a bit of science involved in it. Of course it is misapplied and bent in ways, but it was a crowning achievement of science at one time.
Sure, I don't disagree with this. However, the only reason I brought Hitler up was because of his study and following of eugenics which is basically the concept of races being superior or inferior to others based around the very real and imaginary differences scientifically supported between the races and he took it to the point of trying to genetically cleanse the "impurities" from the master race. A reason we do not emphasize these differences any more is because of the "horrid" acts that happened in the past when we did.
Bunker where people won't want to go? Try going to an embassy in an area recently torn by war and having the state department turn down your requests for more security on the anniversary of 9/11 when there are known Al Qeada agents operating in the area.
This is something people should be giving serious thought to. If the government sends people over seas, will they do it right and safely or will they forget there might be a danger in some places and leave you to die?
I think he is talking about recreational drug use and the likes. You know, the party til you puke crowd that usually comes from college or the first reunion.
I think the difference is that with a Kite-board, the sail isn't attached to the structure but rather flown as a kite and tethered to the floating device usually resembling a surfboard or a wake board. This uses an actual sail attached to an actual boat making it slightly different.
This is actually a record for the type of boat, one with the sails physically attached and pushing instead of pulling the vessel.
This isn't about traffic just coming at you. It is about you authorizing others to use your computer and internet access to hide their true identities (being an exit node) and you being held accountable for the content they send. If everything they send from your computer is legal in your location, all is fine. If it isn't, you can be liable.
This is entirely different then spam or a virus infection which you have no control over. You would have installed the program and intentionally allowed others to use your computing resources to hide their identities. You are essentially saying, it wasn't them, it was me, and the court ruled you can be accountable when it violates the law.
Are you thinking of sending your kiddie porn to the judge or something?
There is a little difference in all the sudden receiving something, requesting that something, or creating a situation where that something is likely to happen without specifically requesting it.
You have a good point. I know a guy who renewed his drivers license after pounding a 12 pack down because although drinking and driving didn't bother him, not having a valid license did.
Evidently, there are a lot of people and most of them are democrats. I do remember hearing of an old woman who was born before they routinely issued birth certificates or before they were computerized and the original records were destroyed in a fire making it difficult for her to obtain a copy of it.
I also know someone who was born in another state and would have to travel to the his birth state/city to obtain a legal copy of his birth certificate. It's not that he doesn't have one, it's that access to it would be a financial burden and weakening the process of getting it would negate most of the security of requiring it. On the other hand, this guy probably isn't someone you would want to encourage to vote.
Contrived situations or not, there are still possibilities that are somewhat legitimate in appearance. I think they are very few in reality but evidently enough that voter ID laws are bad or something.
I don't think you will become Hitler, but a hitler will be born. I seriously doubt someone spouting the same racist crap today could become a leader of anything except minorities and idiots. change how we view those comments and it will change who follows them.
You can but I'm not sure what your point would be. The KKK of the last 50 years is a pretty docile organization compared to its' history and is largely neutered in its deeds. They are more talk then anything. You can't even make the GP's point about religious extremes as the modern KKK mostly uses science to back it's position instead of religious ideals.
Nah. No matter how you look at it, they are only vicariously connected which means the people in charge of the stations- even the parent corps can comply with those traits. That's the entire purpose of a corporation, to separate the acts from the owners who took no part in them.
It would be considering the times were completely different 2000 years ago and using the moral standards of today creates a fallacy situation when you somehow attribute standards of now to past events. It is entirely proper to interpret events through the eyes of the participants of the events.
What is wrong with it is that when it was done before, it led to all sorts of bad things. Hitler's master race ambitions were working under the premise of eugenics which was science somewhat at it's worst. It led to forced sterilizations and even deaths of people deemed inferior or a pollutant to the gene pool (even in the USA- California has the record for forced sterilizations). The differences in race is insignificant enough that delineation often does not serve a purpose.
It's not odd. Not all racism is random crap being spewed and some of it directly contradicts itself in seemingly legitimate situations. After all, when science pushed Eugenics, they didn't find something wrong with the idea or concept of genetically superior or inferior races, they abandoned it because of the acts of those using it for their own advantage
Most people do not really know it when they are being "racist". They do not know of other cultures or whatever and say things that later get pointed out as being racist. Racism is somewhat of a moving target too. It is often used as a weapon against someone with seemingly legitimate intents. Some things can have perfectly legitimate purposes and be claimed as racist and it is completely a moving target. For instance, we cannot exclude or discriminate against people because of race in hiring for employment or the payment of wages. On the other hand, quota mandates specifically mean someone will be excluded because of a need to a specific race. In Virginia (IIRC), they want to defeat the entire purpose of the NCLBA and institute passing/failing scores based around race. I'm sure no one was thinking let them dumb niggers and wetbacks remain dumb and we will concentrate on educating the White and Asian kids. But that is essentially what they ended up with by changing the passing failing levels for a race instead of changing the population of the race to the scores already in place..
Most all holidays are just that. Excuses to get family and friends together and enjoy each other's company. Religion more or less co-opted the experience and put some meaning to it in order to symbolize the religion was with them also. They add this and that and whatever in order to reinforce their own messages.
Slashdot Mirror
I completely get it. There are people who simply do not believe a specific claim of science. They were convinced of the counter claims the same way 90% of the people are convinced of the scientific claims, someone told them who appeared to be authoritative in the matter. Very few people have the resources or skills to replicate the vast majority of scientific discoveries so until they see it in use or have it explained to them by some authority in the matter, they have to trust someone. That does not make them anti-science, it makes them skeptical about a claim. They could very well believe and understand all the other science claims out there.
Like I said, stop playing Bush, it's not a with us or against us situation.
Just because someone expresses doubt about a scientific claim doesn't mean they are anti-science. Stop playing Bush, this is not an "either you are with us or against us" life we live.
Then the only thing wrong in Watergate was the break in right? I mean that is what they would have found at best, damaging and embarrassing in the watergate break ins. They shared the information with their donors too. In fact, that was what the prostitution ring was supposed to have been about, they coordinated prostitutes to sleep with donors and certain congress critters in order to get support for their guy.
Perhaps you don't know what watergate was? It was about more then tresspass or theft. To boil it down to that sort of makes my entire point. If the rest doesn't matter, then it isn't as bad as people are making it out to be.
lol.. To you have a comprehension problem or something? Romney's comment was how he was going to spend the contributions- he wasn't going to bother with the other 47% because they will never vote for him, they will never take responsibility for themselves. If that is not strategy, I do not know what it. I mean catering your campaign to specific people and not certain people for whatever reason is nothing but strategy. Maybe you should go troll somewhere else? The 47% comment was made completely about how he was going to spend the donations they gave and why. That is strategy plain and simple.
I think you will have a very difficult time trying to convince anyone that an app like a web browser or email client has an intended primary purpose of inviting virus and trojans into a computer so others can access your computer resources and send information as if they were you. On the other hand, that is specifically what you are doing when installing one of these darknet clients.
This is not about someone accessing your internet without your explicit permission. This is about you explicitly allowing the communications. In Germany, it is already illegal to not secure your wireless. The only thing stupid in this is you trying to conflate an involuntary act with a purposely committed act. I suspect you know this as well which is why you didn't bother logging into an account to post.
Well, in one case, the information is subversively being given by a con- a simple misrepresentation of person and intent. In the other, it's breaking and entering or as the law would claim, searching without a warrant which can be legal in certain limited situations. Up until recently, the thing that made it so important was the fact that campaign strategy was accessible. No one was ever caught with it, nor was any of it offered as evidence. It's one of the rare cases where a cop breaks the law and gets busted like normal people would. There are tons of instances where cops illegally search places and do not even get a slap on their wrist.
There isn't much more difference between the two other then how it happened. Breaking and entering or conning your way to access. It is probably an interesting debate that should be had. I mean was Nixon really that bad when the FBI broke into a building or what Nixon bad because they gained access to secrete campaign strategy that wouldn't have had access to. Is getting access to this secrete campaign strategy still something that is bad, or is it par for the course and we need to stop demonizing Nixon.
No one ever showed Nixon committed crimes. He was pardoned before any trial or real insight to them happened. I know it's popular to claim he was a crooks, but even the real crooks claim Nixon wasn't involved and all but one claim they were going after evidence of a prostitution ring. IT should be noted, two of the agents behind the break ins were then and are still now democrats, only one of them claimed Nixon sent them or it was anything pertaining to the election. The only thing left is a gap in a recording that congress demanded- but it seems like the presidents of any party claims executive privilege all the time now so that's sort of a wash.
However, I find what happened, the FBI broke into the campaign headquarters to be little different then the current practice of democrat operatives infiltrating republican fund raisers and video or audio taping the strategies then releasing what they think might be damaging to the public.
What I'm getting at is not that Nixon was innocent or anything. It's just that there is enough plausible deniability and current situations are so close to those, it doesn't seem like any crime happened. I mean what is the difference other then technical when someone pretends to be a donor in order to gather campaign information that is secrete or embarrassing and breaking into an office for the same?
You didn't say the article sumery, you said "whereas the other article goes for the simple and wrong strategy of conflating first Class B vessel to 100 km/hr with first in all classes to 100 km/hr." The other article which I correctly quoted from made a specific claim about a specific condition and was a specific response to the other article claim. The headline, while inaccurate, is more incomplete then inaccurate if it is even inaccurate. It is the first time a vessel powered only by sails has reached those speeds in a 500 km course according to a certain organization's certification.
Read the fucking article, it's right in there. I'm not trying to claim anything other then what they claimed. It seems you are the one with the problem in reality not me. Are you claiming the article referenced does not say what it says?
If you say so. It appears you would be trying to do it. Look, I seriously do not know what to tell you. You said the other article, I read it, it says it was the first, now you want to claim you were talking about the story submission. I cannot read you mind and anticipate your failings in communications not can I be expected to answer to something you did not say. Like I said before slow down a bit and focus on comprehending what you are reading and thinks about what you are actually saying.
Sigh,
The rider is attached to the board making the kite tethered to the board. The important part here is how it is fixed means it requires more or less materials and the kite-board can be way less by design. This means less weight is being pulled through the water, less of a craft is in the water also meaning less resistance. It is easier to get a kite board up to higher speeds because of simple physics. I said nothing about classification other then the differences between a kite board and a sail boat is significant when at those speeds. It's like comparing the speed of a motorcycle and car with the same horse power motors in them. They are both vehicles, they are both motor-vehicles, but one doesn't have the weight advantages the other has.
I think your problem is a different argument then what was made. The register statement said it was recognized by the World Sailing Speed Record Council as the first class B vessel doing it in a 500 meter course. This is a specific statement detailing a specific claim with specific conditions. I would have assumed someone as pedant as you insisting that tethered to the rider who is tethered to a board is somehow different from being tethered to the board would have picked up on the specifics of it. Please slow down and think about what was said then think about what you are going to say..
Eugenics was based on principles of plant biology and its evolution and extended well beyond race. It was the scientific rage at the time and started with observations by Gregor Johann Mendel who was studying evolution of strains of the pea plant.
Here is a scientific American article on it published in 1911. Notice the sentence "The absurdity of legislation to cure social evils without scientific facts to base that legislation upon, is no more apparent than in the disposal of the insane You will find it more closely resembles Darwinism and evolution rather then your claim of racist bigots. You will also find the alarming claim of scientific fact was actually a push to end a "cured" mans ability to reproduce based on this scientific fact.
As I said, look up the scientific theory of Eugenics. You will find quite a bit of science involved in it. Of course it is misapplied and bent in ways, but it was a crowning achievement of science at one time.
Sure, I don't disagree with this. However, the only reason I brought Hitler up was because of his study and following of eugenics which is basically the concept of races being superior or inferior to others based around the very real and imaginary differences scientifically supported between the races and he took it to the point of trying to genetically cleanse the "impurities" from the master race. A reason we do not emphasize these differences any more is because of the "horrid" acts that happened in the past when we did.
Bunker where people won't want to go? Try going to an embassy in an area recently torn by war and having the state department turn down your requests for more security on the anniversary of 9/11 when there are known Al Qeada agents operating in the area.
This is something people should be giving serious thought to. If the government sends people over seas, will they do it right and safely or will they forget there might be a danger in some places and leave you to die?
I think he is talking about recreational drug use and the likes. You know, the party til you puke crowd that usually comes from college or the first reunion.
I think the difference is that with a Kite-board, the sail isn't attached to the structure but rather flown as a kite and tethered to the floating device usually resembling a surfboard or a wake board. This uses an actual sail attached to an actual boat making it slightly different.
This is actually a record for the type of boat, one with the sails physically attached and pushing instead of pulling the vessel.
This isn't about traffic just coming at you. It is about you authorizing others to use your computer and internet access to hide their true identities (being an exit node) and you being held accountable for the content they send. If everything they send from your computer is legal in your location, all is fine. If it isn't, you can be liable.
This is entirely different then spam or a virus infection which you have no control over. You would have installed the program and intentionally allowed others to use your computing resources to hide their identities. You are essentially saying, it wasn't them, it was me, and the court ruled you can be accountable when it violates the law.
Are you thinking of sending your kiddie porn to the judge or something?
There is a little difference in all the sudden receiving something, requesting that something, or creating a situation where that something is likely to happen without specifically requesting it.
You have a good point. I know a guy who renewed his drivers license after pounding a 12 pack down because although drinking and driving didn't bother him, not having a valid license did.
Evidently, there are a lot of people and most of them are democrats. I do remember hearing of an old woman who was born before they routinely issued birth certificates or before they were computerized and the original records were destroyed in a fire making it difficult for her to obtain a copy of it.
I also know someone who was born in another state and would have to travel to the his birth state/city to obtain a legal copy of his birth certificate. It's not that he doesn't have one, it's that access to it would be a financial burden and weakening the process of getting it would negate most of the security of requiring it. On the other hand, this guy probably isn't someone you would want to encourage to vote.
Contrived situations or not, there are still possibilities that are somewhat legitimate in appearance. I think they are very few in reality but evidently enough that voter ID laws are bad or something.
I don't think you will become Hitler, but a hitler will be born. I seriously doubt someone spouting the same racist crap today could become a leader of anything except minorities and idiots. change how we view those comments and it will change who follows them.
You can but I'm not sure what your point would be. The KKK of the last 50 years is a pretty docile organization compared to its' history and is largely neutered in its deeds. They are more talk then anything. You can't even make the GP's point about religious extremes as the modern KKK mostly uses science to back it's position instead of religious ideals.
Nah. No matter how you look at it, they are only vicariously connected which means the people in charge of the stations- even the parent corps can comply with those traits. That's the entire purpose of a corporation, to separate the acts from the owners who took no part in them.
It would be considering the times were completely different 2000 years ago and using the moral standards of today creates a fallacy situation when you somehow attribute standards of now to past events. It is entirely proper to interpret events through the eyes of the participants of the events.
What is wrong with it is that when it was done before, it led to all sorts of bad things. Hitler's master race ambitions were working under the premise of eugenics which was science somewhat at it's worst. It led to forced sterilizations and even deaths of people deemed inferior or a pollutant to the gene pool (even in the USA- California has the record for forced sterilizations). The differences in race is insignificant enough that delineation often does not serve a purpose.
Look up the scientific theory of eugenics. It was all the craze less then a century ago.
It's not odd. Not all racism is random crap being spewed and some of it directly contradicts itself in seemingly legitimate situations. After all, when science pushed Eugenics, they didn't find something wrong with the idea or concept of genetically superior or inferior races, they abandoned it because of the acts of those using it for their own advantage
Most people do not really know it when they are being "racist". They do not know of other cultures or whatever and say things that later get pointed out as being racist. Racism is somewhat of a moving target too. It is often used as a weapon against someone with seemingly legitimate intents. Some things can have perfectly legitimate purposes and be claimed as racist and it is completely a moving target. For instance, we cannot exclude or discriminate against people because of race in hiring for employment or the payment of wages. On the other hand, quota mandates specifically mean someone will be excluded because of a need to a specific race. In Virginia (IIRC), they want to defeat the entire purpose of the NCLBA and institute passing/failing scores based around race. I'm sure no one was thinking let them dumb niggers and wetbacks remain dumb and we will concentrate on educating the White and Asian kids. But that is essentially what they ended up with by changing the passing failing levels for a race instead of changing the population of the race to the scores already in place..
Most all holidays are just that. Excuses to get family and friends together and enjoy each other's company. Religion more or less co-opted the experience and put some meaning to it in order to symbolize the religion was with them also. They add this and that and whatever in order to reinforce their own messages.