Though I think having our men and women fighting these same terrorists outside military compounds in foriegn countries is probably insulating us here in the civilian world.
I see what you're saying, but you're neglecting to acknowledge that Iraq is full of civilian targets that are frequently attacked. American civilians have lost their lives from attacks in Iraq.
More obviously, the Iraqi insurgents are predominantly not the organized terrorist networks that pose greatest threat to Americans at home. The parent poster's main argument is that it is way too soon to expect another large-scale attack on the homeland. Counter-terrorism experts have backed this up. One more point:
What will be telling is whether or not terrorism incidents resume against civilian targets after we decrease our presence in Iraq/Afganistan.
Resume? I would love to see the statistics that back this up. Unfortunately, terrorism against civilians is increasing worldwide. Whether this is due to Bush's policies or not is the pivotal question.
So what you're saying is, there are no Iraqi terrorists?
No, I'm pretty sure that the parent was saying that there is no evidence of collaboration between Iraq and Al Qaida.
(In case you don't know, Al Qaida is the terrorist organization responsible for 9/11. Also, Japan caused Pearl Harbor and Abraham Lincoln was assassinated by an American. Iraq isn't connected with any of these events.)
So, what's the simplest explanation in this case? That the researchers accidentally spilled petrol in their experiment? I think we'd better investigate this a little more before drawing conclusions.
...or (b) enough people are affected that it appears on the radar of general public consciousness.
Appearing on public consciousness won't make any difference if the public doesn't VOTE. Are you waiting for everyone else to start voting their conscience before you do?
Why I'm voting for Bush: [anti-liberal hate speech]
This supports a conjecture of mine: that Bush lovers just aren't informed enough to choose their own leader. Seriously, do some basic research. It will take only a few minutes of your time and you will learn a LOT.
For example:
Military efforts cost money. Regan spent during the Cold War, and Bush is having to spend BECAUSE WE WERE ATTACKED!
Wrong. The main reasons for the deficit are the tax cuts for the wealthy and the Iraq war. Response to 9/11 and homeland security aren't getting the funding they need. This has been in the news several times.
Liberals are all for human rights, and even going to war for them, but when we remove a torturous, murderous, raping dictator under a "conservatives" watch, then we're the bad guy and the "war" is insane.
You apparently aren't aware that Kerry voted for the resolution to go to war! But, as you should know, the prosecution of this war has become the biggest government fiasco of our time. It was for retaliation... no, security... no, human rights... the flip-flops continue. All this from someone who opposes nation building.
Perhaps Bush is no better, but at least he's consistent and he obviously has a plan
Actually, it is widely believed that a lack of planning created the mess in Iraq. And I don't see how someone can take both sides of so many issues (nation building, 9/11 commission, dept of homeland security, states' rights) and be considered "consistent" at all. "Incoherent" is more like it.
There will always appear to be too much at stake. That's the trap.
Yes, it's a trap. But it's also a trap to believe that a third-party vote (or abstaining) is the most honest way to vote. Never underestimate the power of kicking out an incumbent - it's a powerful way of saying "stop it". I look forward to kicking Kerry out in 2008 if he doesn't significantly improve the Iraq situation and get rid of the Patriot Act.
Id rather have a small world with a lot of detail than Morrowind.
Morrowind does have a small world with a lot of detail compared to its predecessor, Daggerfall. You should have seen that game - massive expanses of *nothing*, hundreds of different towns and cities all made from the same building blocks, randomly generated dungeons ridiculously illogical in their layout. Daggerfall was also infamously buggy.
If you want a detailed world, then Bethesda is definitely heading in the right direction. But I'd be concerned about bugs; that company doesn't have such a good track record.
They take real things, real people, and somewhat real interviews and just totally twist the heck out of it to make it sound ludicrous.
How do you know? You haven't seen it yet! You know next to nothing about it, and yet you feel qualified to pass a judgement? Believe me, I'd love to discuss the Bush-Saudi ties, the Bush-bin Laden ties, the needless death of innocent Iraqis, the lack of homeland security funding, etc., etc. Unfortunately, we can't really have a discussion until you sit down and actually see the film. Fair enough?
I don't really see the parallel between a film critical of authority and state-sponsored propaganda. If you really want a modern example of a government distorting truth to gain support for immoral policies, I think you know exactly where to look.
Think for a moment about the comparison you have made. Condsider what might have happened if
people like Moore had spoken out in Germany while the Third Reich was taking power. It is disgraceful that many people will eat up anything the Bush administration says as gospel truth but can't even let a guy with an opposing viewpoint call his film a documentary.
I've seen that definition, and it does not mention objectivity. You're attempting to cut and paste two different definitions together.
When a dictionary lists more than one definition for a word, that means that the word can be used to fit any one definition, not all definitions simultaneously.
Now, it's clear that Bush and Cheney didn't star in their own cowboy flick, but a little obvious silliness doesn't make the facts presented any less true.
Well, it's a film. That's a noun, not an adjective. From your own dictionary source, this is the definition:
documentary n. A work, such as a film or television program, presenting political, social, or historical subject matter in a factual and informative manner and often consisting of actual news films or interviews accompanied by narration.
By your own dictionary's definition, this film is a documentary. If you are taking issue with the facts then cite specifics. If not, then cease the misleading name-calling.
Wrong. This particular type of fusion reactor doesn't lend itself to meltdowns, but there is nothing about a "fusion reaction" itself that makes a meltdown impossible. A REACTOR and a REACTION are two different things; don't confuse them!
A binary bit holds one piece of information, it has two states but is still only one bit (piece) of information.
It's nonsense - I'm not aware of the definition of 'piece' as a unit of information. Of course, 'spot' is undefined as well. But I'm sure you get the idea: scan once and recover two bits.
Furthermore, the PATRIOT Act is not "temporary safety" it is a measure designed to protect us from a very real threat that has already killed well over 3,000 people in the last few years.
Yes, well over 3000. The attack on 9/11 not only killed 3000 Americans, it fostered a reckless foreign policy that has killed hundreds more Americans, perhaps 10,000 Iraqi civilians, and who knows how many Iraqi and Afghani combatants. And these numbers continue to climb, despite passage of legislation like the PA. I guess we still have too many liberties, eh?
Be reasonable. No one is claiming to be the voice of humanity. It's a report. Reports are often inaccurate, but if no one publishes anything then we don't get very far, do we?
If this were an isolated event, then maybe I would agree with you. But this is part of a larger trend of frustration at the administration for the reasons outlined in the report. I don't know how trustworthy these UCS folks are, but they are giving a strong voice to a concern that many people have. I'd rather see this become an issue than swept under the carpet. What's most important to me is that UCS has not made an irrefutable claim. A third party can look at the evidence and choose to support them, or not.
Now, when someone makes a completely partisan statement, they claim without evidence (or knowingly with bad evidence). I don't feel that UCS has made such a statement.
Admittedly, this report released at this time is necessarily going to become political. But again, there's no harm if this becomes an investigated issue and not some smear like the 'Al Gore creating the internet' debacle.
Ha, good one! But you forget that this is a report and that was a petition. The former needs only the signatures of the participants, while the latter needs the signatures of as many people as possible.
Proof of the scientific studies or proof of government omissions? It should be obvious that they don't need to republish the results of previous studies in this report.
Highly qualified according to whom? UCS?
Ah, but there are such things as verifiable scientific qualifications. Of course, a little healthy skepticism is good too. You are free to verify the findings of the report on your own. This isn't politics; it's science.
That's specific? Not a single incident is cited.
I can't access the report right now, but I still managed to find this from cnn.com:
Among the examples cited in the union's report:
* A 2003 report that the administration sought changes in an Environmental Protection Agency climate study, including deletion of a 1,000-year temperature record and removal of reference to a study that attributed some of global warming to human activity.
* A delay in an EPA report on mercury pollution from some power plants.
* A charge that the administration pressed the Centers for Disease Control to end a project called "Programs that Work," which found sex education programs that did not insist only on abstinence were still effective.
I'm surprised that you couldn't find the examples yourself. Did you read the actual report or just an article about the report?
Can you guess what would have happened to Dan Ellsberg if he'd stolen the Pentagon Papers from the British government and published them in the NY Times?
Can you guess what would happen to someone who, in 2003, did the same thing in the US? They could be detained without trial and thrown in the Gulag. (Not necessarily, of course, but the provision is there.) The comparison to China is extremely unfair, but it's a reflection on what has happened in recent years rather than the principles upon which the US was previously based. Sad.
But he makes a valid point in the end. I wouldn't trust the US government with control over the internet either. Would you?
I suspect that a good amount of this confusion about the nature of mathematics is due to our weak terminology. One asks, "Is mathematics universal?" and people start thinking of different things. Some imagine mathematics as a general concept, others as a specific institution.
So, while it's clear that mathematics, as a concept, must be universal (or else it isn't analytical), it's equally obvious that there are many, many different ways that mathematics can be practically developed and applied. I'd like to see large sections of our fundamental mathematical concepts (set theory, number theory) rewritten. But certainly it would still be the same 'mathematics' no matter how we develop it.
Slashdot Mirror
Though I think having our men and women fighting these same terrorists outside military compounds in foriegn countries is probably insulating us here in the civilian world.
I see what you're saying, but you're neglecting to acknowledge that Iraq is full of civilian targets that are frequently attacked. American civilians have lost their lives from attacks in Iraq.
More obviously, the Iraqi insurgents are predominantly not the organized terrorist networks that pose greatest threat to Americans at home. The parent poster's main argument is that it is way too soon to expect another large-scale attack on the homeland. Counter-terrorism experts have backed this up. One more point:
What will be telling is whether or not terrorism incidents resume against civilian targets after we decrease our presence in Iraq/Afganistan.
Resume? I would love to see the statistics that back this up. Unfortunately, terrorism against civilians is increasing worldwide. Whether this is due to Bush's policies or not is the pivotal question.
So what you're saying is, there are no Iraqi terrorists?
No, I'm pretty sure that the parent was saying that there is no evidence of collaboration between Iraq and Al Qaida.
(In case you don't know, Al Qaida is the terrorist organization responsible for 9/11. Also, Japan caused Pearl Harbor and Abraham Lincoln was assassinated by an American. Iraq isn't connected with any of these events.)
that they whine about an 'intellectual elite' while calling everyone but themselves stupid.
Remember, you can't love America if you hate Americans.
Occam's razor anyone?
So, what's the simplest explanation in this case? That the researchers accidentally spilled petrol in their experiment? I think we'd better investigate this a little more before drawing conclusions.
In that case it would be a violation of library policy, not a theft of bandwidth/signal.
...or (b) enough people are affected that it appears on the radar of general public consciousness.
Appearing on public consciousness won't make any difference if the public doesn't VOTE. Are you waiting for everyone else to start voting their conscience before you do?
Why I'm voting for Bush: [anti-liberal hate speech]
This supports a conjecture of mine: that Bush lovers just aren't informed enough to choose their own leader. Seriously, do some basic research. It will take only a few minutes of your time and you will learn a LOT.
For example:
Military efforts cost money. Regan spent during the Cold War, and Bush is having to spend BECAUSE WE WERE ATTACKED!
Wrong. The main reasons for the deficit are the tax cuts for the wealthy and the Iraq war. Response to 9/11 and homeland security aren't getting the funding they need. This has been in the news several times.
Liberals are all for human rights, and even going to war for them, but when we remove a torturous, murderous, raping dictator under a "conservatives" watch, then we're the bad guy and the "war" is insane.
You apparently aren't aware that Kerry voted for the resolution to go to war! But, as you should know, the prosecution of this war has become the biggest government fiasco of our time. It was for retaliation... no, security... no, human rights... the flip-flops continue. All this from someone who opposes nation building.
Perhaps Bush is no better, but at least he's consistent and he obviously has a plan
Actually, it is widely believed that a lack of planning created the mess in Iraq. And I don't see how someone can take both sides of so many issues (nation building, 9/11 commission, dept of homeland security, states' rights) and be considered "consistent" at all. "Incoherent" is more like it.
There will always appear to be too much at stake. That's the trap.
Yes, it's a trap. But it's also a trap to believe that a third-party vote (or abstaining) is the most honest way to vote. Never underestimate the power of kicking out an incumbent - it's a powerful way of saying "stop it". I look forward to kicking Kerry out in 2008 if he doesn't significantly improve the Iraq situation and get rid of the Patriot Act.
Your conversation with Tarrantino would be neither artful nor surreptitious. It is therefore not stealing.
Id rather have a small world with a lot of detail than Morrowind.
Morrowind does have a small world with a lot of detail compared to its predecessor, Daggerfall. You should have seen that game - massive expanses of *nothing*, hundreds of different towns and cities all made from the same building blocks, randomly generated dungeons ridiculously illogical in their layout. Daggerfall was also infamously buggy.
If you want a detailed world, then Bethesda is definitely heading in the right direction. But I'd be concerned about bugs; that company doesn't have such a good track record.
They take real things, real people, and somewhat real interviews and just totally twist the heck out of it to make it sound ludicrous.
How do you know? You haven't seen it yet! You know next to nothing about it, and yet you feel qualified to pass a judgement? Believe me, I'd love to discuss the Bush-Saudi ties, the Bush-bin Laden ties, the needless death of innocent Iraqis, the lack of homeland security funding, etc., etc. Unfortunately, we can't really have a discussion until you sit down and actually see the film. Fair enough?
I don't really see the parallel between a film critical of authority and state-sponsored propaganda. If you really want a modern example of a government distorting truth to gain support for immoral policies, I think you know exactly where to look.
Think for a moment about the comparison you have made. Condsider what might have happened if people like Moore had spoken out in Germany while the Third Reich was taking power. It is disgraceful that many people will eat up anything the Bush administration says as gospel truth but can't even let a guy with an opposing viewpoint call his film a documentary.
I've seen that definition, and it does not mention objectivity. You're attempting to cut and paste two different definitions together.
When a dictionary lists more than one definition for a word, that means that the word can be used to fit any one definition, not all definitions simultaneously.
Now, it's clear that Bush and Cheney didn't star in their own cowboy flick, but a little obvious silliness doesn't make the facts presented any less true.
Well, it's a film. That's a noun, not an adjective. From your own dictionary source, this is the definition:
documentary n. A work, such as a film or television program, presenting political, social, or historical subject matter in a factual and informative manner and often consisting of actual news films or interviews accompanied by narration.
By your own dictionary's definition, this film is a documentary. If you are taking issue with the facts then cite specifics. If not, then cease the misleading name-calling.
Thank you.
A fusion reaction is hard to keep going
Wrong. This particular type of fusion reactor doesn't lend itself to meltdowns, but there is nothing about a "fusion reaction" itself that makes a meltdown impossible. A REACTOR and a REACTION are two different things; don't confuse them!
Since when did our children start getting taught lies and half truths?
I take it you've never actually been to an American high school south of the Mason-Dixon line.
A binary bit holds one piece of information, it has two states but is still only one bit (piece) of information.
It's nonsense - I'm not aware of the definition of 'piece' as a unit of information. Of course, 'spot' is undefined as well. But I'm sure you get the idea: scan once and recover two bits.
Furthermore, the PATRIOT Act is not "temporary safety" it is a measure designed to protect us from a very real threat that has already killed well over 3,000 people in the last few years.
Yes, well over 3000. The attack on 9/11 not only killed 3000 Americans, it fostered a reckless foreign policy that has killed hundreds more Americans, perhaps 10,000 Iraqi civilians, and who knows how many Iraqi and Afghani combatants. And these numbers continue to climb, despite passage of legislation like the PA. I guess we still have too many liberties, eh?
Be reasonable. No one is claiming to be the voice of humanity. It's a report. Reports are often inaccurate, but if no one publishes anything then we don't get very far, do we?
If this were an isolated event, then maybe I would agree with you. But this is part of a larger trend of frustration at the administration for the reasons outlined in the report. I don't know how trustworthy these UCS folks are, but they are giving a strong voice to a concern that many people have. I'd rather see this become an issue than swept under the carpet. What's most important to me is that UCS has not made an irrefutable claim. A third party can look at the evidence and choose to support them, or not.
Now, when someone makes a completely partisan statement, they claim without evidence (or knowingly with bad evidence). I don't feel that UCS has made such a statement.
Admittedly, this report released at this time is necessarily going to become political. But again, there's no harm if this becomes an investigated issue and not some smear like the 'Al Gore creating the internet' debacle.
Ha, good one! But you forget that this is a report and that was a petition. The former needs only the signatures of the participants, while the latter needs the signatures of as many people as possible.
really? no proof given though, huh?
Proof of the scientific studies or proof of government omissions? It should be obvious that they don't need to republish the results of previous studies in this report.
Highly qualified according to whom? UCS?
Ah, but there are such things as verifiable scientific qualifications. Of course, a little healthy skepticism is good too. You are free to verify the findings of the report on your own. This isn't politics; it's science.
That's specific? Not a single incident is cited.
I can't access the report right now, but I still managed to find this from cnn.com:
Among the examples cited in the union's report:
* A 2003 report that the administration sought changes in an Environmental Protection Agency climate study, including deletion of a 1,000-year temperature record and removal of reference to a study that attributed some of global warming to human activity.
* A delay in an EPA report on mercury pollution from some power plants.
* A charge that the administration pressed the Centers for Disease Control to end a project called "Programs that Work," which found sex education programs that did not insist only on abstinence were still effective.
I'm surprised that you couldn't find the examples yourself. Did you read the actual report or just an article about the report?
Can you guess what would have happened to Dan Ellsberg if he'd stolen the Pentagon Papers from the British government and published them in the NY Times?
Can you guess what would happen to someone who, in 2003, did the same thing in the US? They could be detained without trial and thrown in the Gulag. (Not necessarily, of course, but the provision is there.) The comparison to China is extremely unfair, but it's a reflection on what has happened in recent years rather than the principles upon which the US was previously based. Sad.
But he makes a valid point in the end. I wouldn't trust the US government with control over the internet either. Would you?
I suspect that a good amount of this confusion about the nature of mathematics is due to our weak terminology. One asks, "Is mathematics universal?" and people start thinking of different things. Some imagine mathematics as a general concept, others as a specific institution.
So, while it's clear that mathematics, as a concept, must be universal (or else it isn't analytical), it's equally obvious that there are many, many different ways that mathematics can be practically developed and applied. I'd like to see large sections of our fundamental mathematical concepts (set theory, number theory) rewritten. But certainly it would still be the same 'mathematics' no matter how we develop it.
Shouldn't a fair benchmark take advantage of 64-bit-only optimizations?