ARTHUR: Go and tell your master that we have been charged by God with a sacred quest. If he will give us food and shelter for the night he can join us in our quest for the Holy Grail.
GUARD: Well, I'll ask him, but I don't think he'll be very keen... Uh, he's already got one, you see?
As in Mutually Assured Destruction, if the SR-72 were falsely interpreted as a nuclear missile. I doubt that would happen, but I believe that was the point of the "first post".
obviously, you'd simply shine the exact shade of [light] the plants assimilate
How? Filtering the other colors wouldn't save you any electricity here.
You wouldn't filter the other colors, you simply wouldn't emit them in the first place. An efficient LED (or array of LEDs) could be targeted to only provide photons of the desired wavelength. Also, from TFA, it's not just sunlight they're using for energy, they also plan on using biofuel from the plants themselves (left over biomatter after they're harvested). I'm still not convinced it's a good idea, but it's not as stupid as some people on/. try to make it out to be, either.
If this is even close to accurate, it pisses me off more for the wasted time and money than anything else.
Actually, I'm a lot more concerned about locking innocent people up than I am about wasting time and money. Of course, if that approach (of emphasizing the wasted time/money) will help convince more Americans (I hope it wouldn't, but I don't claim to be a "typical" American), then I suppose that's not too bad a way to put it.
Yeah, because it'd be a good idea to give terrorists easy access to nuclear materials/technology.:)
(Yeah, I know, RTGs use low-grade materials, but it's funnier if you don't think too hard about it. OTOH, it might make it harder to detect actual bomb-making materials if you're scattering around a bunch of RTGs.)
That said, most (quite possibly almost all) of the people in Gitmo were captured by Coalition forces while conducting acts of war, not just rounded up on tips from the locals.
From that same source: "Only 5% of our detainees at Guantanamo were 'scooped up' by American troops, on the battlefield or anywhere else." If you want to challenge that claim, please providing supporting source material.
One point of contact, someone hopefully an experienced tech who understand the Support Drone's support-by-script, instead of Consumer who has to look at their mouse to click it.
I've never had the benefit of supporting a home user, so I can't really compare. However, I have found myself in the position of supporting businesses back when I was in the business of writing software for restaurant owner/operators (payroll, accounts payable, labor scheduling, etc.). I've had to explain what a task bar is, where to find the start button, not to turn off your modem (yes, that thing with the blinking lights that occasionally makes an obnoxious screeching sound) if you want to poll your store's data, that it's diskettes that go in the drive and not biscuits (OK, that one wasn't me personally, but it happened to someone else in the company), etc. Add to that malicious employees, and it might actually be worse than supporting a home user.
It seems that Paris Hilton is more important than Darfur, Jefferson's bribery case (or pick some other Democratic scandal), or the Gonzales testimony (or pick some other Republican scandal). However, I will say there are at least two kinds of bias that you find, in various degrees, in the popular media. The first type of bias is in choosing what to report (Paris Hilton) and what not to report. This bias is inescapable as there is not enough time to report on all news, so someone must make what is ultimately a subjective decision on what news to report. The second kind of bias, which in my opinion is much worse and much more prevalent from sources like DailyKOS and Fox News, is in distorting the news that is reported - through deliberate omission of facts that support a different conclusion than the one they want you to reach, or through just plain mis-stating the truth, AKA lying. Two examples that come to mind: (1) When DailyKOS reported sometime back on the Supreme Court ruling that the EPA should regulate CO2, they said that some act or other explicitly gave the EPA the authority (and duty) to regulate CO2. I read the act and found that it said no such thing. One might argue that it was implicitly in there, but that's a much more subtle matter than the way they presented it. (2) When Fox News reported sometime back on a cross that people wanted to build on private land using private money they stated that the ACLU was against it just because some of those people happen to be elected officials. They completely neglected to mention (which I found out about by reading another, more reliable, conservative news source - since more liberal news sources weren't even covering the story) that the decision to build the cross was made in city council and was going to originally be paid for by city funds - until the ACLU stepped in. Whether or not you agree with the ACLU, I found the way Fox News presented the story to be patently dishonest. They really played up the angle about how just because these people happened to have a job where they worked in government, they weren't allowed to make such decisions on their own, private time, yada, yada, yada.
It is interesting to note the discrepancy in how much time I spent on 1 lie vs. the other just now, but as I said before, I'll admit to my own biases.:)
Oh, one last thing. My favorite new news site is one that you might appreciate as well. RedOrbit - it's primary bias is neither conservative nor liberal.
First of all, I agree completely with the statement: "people do not tend to think too much about what they read." I disagree with the statement that "Liberals err to this more than right wingers do, assuming that they trust the source." Obviously, you and I have very different biases, but I see it more in the other direction (trusting sources like Fox News, junkscience, etc.). I'm definitely willing to acknowledge my bias, but I think - despite my gut instinct - the truth is that liberals are no better (or worse) than conservatives in this regard. Almost everyone needs to learn critical reading skills. I know not to trust DailyKOS, even if I want (perhaps in a sick, twisted part of my brain) to believe what they say. I'm just as skeptical of them as I am of Fox News. On the other hand, I'm slightly more trusting of ABC, CBS, and CNN. That doesn't mean I believe everything they say, but I'm more likely to work on finding evidence that they're telling me the truth than I am to work on finding evidence that they're distorting the truth (like I would if it were coming from DailyKOS or Fox News). TPMCafe and Slashdot are somewhere in between.
Now, consider this: Who pays the most on fuel taxes per mile of road (where, for sake of discussion, one considers one mile of two-lane road to be approximately "two miles of road"), urban areas or rural areas? There is a "redistribution of wealth" away from the cities (where public transport is most helpful, or at least gives you the biggest bang for the buck) and towards the country.
I agree that I over-simplified things a bit. I believe most pundits predict that the Dems will pick up even more seats in '08, so they will have a clean majority (meaning not including independents who claim to be mostly Democrat). Of course, pundits are often wrong.
You also make an excellent point about 9/11 adding to the "perfect storm" that added to the Republicans ability to garner "absolute power".
Fast trains to get to other cities would be nice, too. But... that would cost money, money people would rather give to our rich-ass school district
Or money that people would rather use to build roads instead of to subsidize train systems. A lot of people who are against subsidizing public transportation seem to conveniently ignore the fact that we are already subsidizing private transportation. (I am not lumping you into this category.)
I don't know that it's just anger over the war, but it is more of rebellion against what Bush (and by extension the Republican party) embodies than an embrace of what the Democrats embody. Of course, when we talk about the American public we're really talking about a minority of the American public known as the "swing voters". At least a third of the population (probably more) will vote Republican hell or high water (even if they're dissatisfied with Bush), and at least a third of the population (probably more) will vote Democrat hell or high water. Personally, I tend to lean Democrat, but I can be convinced to vote Republican (or even third party) in certain situations.
It's those at the very top (outside of the professional military) that are the problem. Do me a favor and read that transcript, or better yet, listen to the podcast. It'll demonstrate that there are an awful lot of truly innocent people still in Gitmo.
If someone is an illegal enemy combatant, under the laws of war that have been established over the centuries of conflict in Europe and most of Asia, the on-scene commander has the right and duty to execute that person, without benefit of a trial. Would you rather we do that, instead of trying to ascertain who these people are?
So, is your argument that it's OK to lock up an innocent person because it's better than executing them on the spot? Also, for a large number of people in Gitmo, it wasn't the "on-scene commander" who decided that the person was an enemy combatant. It was a local, who was offered a relatively large sum of money in return. Do you not see the problems inherent in that system?
A lot of people write off the Bush administration as a bunch of ingnorant buffoons that stumble their way from one embarassing mess to the next. They didn't get into the Whitehouse by being dottering old buffoons. They got there by being sharp people [emphasis added], many of them attourneys. So, as far as I can tell, they are people who should know better. Or rather, they are people that would know how to work the system to cover their tracks.
Illegal enemy combatants do not get habeas corpus, any more than POWs do.
And, without habeas corpus, how do you prove you're not an enemy combatant (or even challenge the claim)? How do you prove you're a US citizen without habeas corpus? You do realize that many of the people in Gitmo are there because their enemies turned them in to kill two birds with one stone - first, they got rid of someone they don't like and second, they got a reward from the US government for turning in a terrorist.
Yes, it could happen to the Demo's, but it takes almost a perfect storm.
I don't know about you, but my big toe is aching. Mildred, get the pigs inside the barn!
In all seriousness, I think we're very close to having the pendulum swing over to the other side. Most likely, the Democrats will retain control of the House and Senate and pick up the White House. There will still be 7 out of 9 Supreme Court Justices appointed by Republicans, but that's not as significant as the other two branches in most cases. Then we'll see how the Democrats handle "absolute power".
Slashdot Mirror
ARTHUR: Go and tell your master that we have been charged by God with a sacred quest. If he will give us food and shelter for the night he can join us in our quest for the Holy Grail.
GUARD: Well, I'll ask him, but I don't think he'll be very keen... Uh, he's already got one, you see?
As in Mutually Assured Destruction, if the SR-72 were falsely interpreted as a nuclear missile. I doubt that would happen, but I believe that was the point of the "first post".
I know it won't change your mind about a lot of things, but you will see that not everyone in Afghanistan are (or were) poor, destitute wretches.
If plants absorbed green light, then they wouldn't be green. :)
Objects are the colors they are because those are the colors they don't absorb. Other than that, you're spot on, though.
Yeah, because it'd be a good idea to give terrorists easy access to nuclear materials/technology. :)
(Yeah, I know, RTGs use low-grade materials, but it's funnier if you don't think too hard about it. OTOH, it might make it harder to detect actual bomb-making materials if you're scattering around a bunch of RTGs.)It seems that Paris Hilton is more important than Darfur, Jefferson's bribery case (or pick some other Democratic scandal), or the Gonzales testimony (or pick some other Republican scandal). However, I will say there are at least two kinds of bias that you find, in various degrees, in the popular media. The first type of bias is in choosing what to report (Paris Hilton) and what not to report. This bias is inescapable as there is not enough time to report on all news, so someone must make what is ultimately a subjective decision on what news to report. The second kind of bias, which in my opinion is much worse and much more prevalent from sources like DailyKOS and Fox News, is in distorting the news that is reported - through deliberate omission of facts that support a different conclusion than the one they want you to reach, or through just plain mis-stating the truth, AKA lying. Two examples that come to mind: (1) When DailyKOS reported sometime back on the Supreme Court ruling that the EPA should regulate CO2, they said that some act or other explicitly gave the EPA the authority (and duty) to regulate CO2. I read the act and found that it said no such thing. One might argue that it was implicitly in there, but that's a much more subtle matter than the way they presented it. (2) When Fox News reported sometime back on a cross that people wanted to build on private land using private money they stated that the ACLU was against it just because some of those people happen to be elected officials. They completely neglected to mention (which I found out about by reading another, more reliable, conservative news source - since more liberal news sources weren't even covering the story) that the decision to build the cross was made in city council and was going to originally be paid for by city funds - until the ACLU stepped in. Whether or not you agree with the ACLU, I found the way Fox News presented the story to be patently dishonest. They really played up the angle about how just because these people happened to have a job where they worked in government, they weren't allowed to make such decisions on their own, private time, yada, yada, yada.
It is interesting to note the discrepancy in how much time I spent on 1 lie vs. the other just now, but as I said before, I'll admit to my own biases. :)
Oh, one last thing. My favorite new news site is one that you might appreciate as well. RedOrbit - it's primary bias is neither conservative nor liberal.
First of all, I agree completely with the statement: "people do not tend to think too much about what they read." I disagree with the statement that "Liberals err to this more than right wingers do, assuming that they trust the source." Obviously, you and I have very different biases, but I see it more in the other direction (trusting sources like Fox News, junkscience, etc.). I'm definitely willing to acknowledge my bias, but I think - despite my gut instinct - the truth is that liberals are no better (or worse) than conservatives in this regard. Almost everyone needs to learn critical reading skills. I know not to trust DailyKOS, even if I want (perhaps in a sick, twisted part of my brain) to believe what they say. I'm just as skeptical of them as I am of Fox News. On the other hand, I'm slightly more trusting of ABC, CBS, and CNN. That doesn't mean I believe everything they say, but I'm more likely to work on finding evidence that they're telling me the truth than I am to work on finding evidence that they're distorting the truth (like I would if it were coming from DailyKOS or Fox News). TPMCafe and Slashdot are somewhere in between.
Now, consider this: Who pays the most on fuel taxes per mile of road (where, for sake of discussion, one considers one mile of two-lane road to be approximately "two miles of road"), urban areas or rural areas? There is a "redistribution of wealth" away from the cities (where public transport is most helpful, or at least gives you the biggest bang for the buck) and towards the country.
I agree that I over-simplified things a bit. I believe most pundits predict that the Dems will pick up even more seats in '08, so they will have a clean majority (meaning not including independents who claim to be mostly Democrat). Of course, pundits are often wrong.
You also make an excellent point about 9/11 adding to the "perfect storm" that added to the Republicans ability to garner "absolute power".
Or money that people would rather use to build roads instead of to subsidize train systems. A lot of people who are against subsidizing public transportation seem to conveniently ignore the fact that we are already subsidizing private transportation. (I am not lumping you into this category.)
I don't know that it's just anger over the war, but it is more of rebellion against what Bush (and by extension the Republican party) embodies than an embrace of what the Democrats embody. Of course, when we talk about the American public we're really talking about a minority of the American public known as the "swing voters". At least a third of the population (probably more) will vote Republican hell or high water (even if they're dissatisfied with Bush), and at least a third of the population (probably more) will vote Democrat hell or high water. Personally, I tend to lean Democrat, but I can be convinced to vote Republican (or even third party) in certain situations.
You mean you have such a low opinion of Americans that you don't think they're capable of doing PCA on their own?
On a different, more serious and definitely more pedantic note:
That should read "et cetera or etc." Little known bonus fact: the ampersand character (&) is medieval shorthand for the Latin et, meaning "and".That states the 6502 that I was thinking of. However, that usage did not make sense to me in the context provided.
And, without habeas corpus, how do you prove you're not an enemy combatant (or even challenge the claim)? How do you prove you're a US citizen without habeas corpus? You do realize that many of the people in Gitmo are there because their enemies turned them in to kill two birds with one stone - first, they got rid of someone they don't like and second, they got a reward from the US government for turning in a terrorist.
I don't know about you, but my big toe is aching. Mildred, get the pigs inside the barn!
In all seriousness, I think we're very close to having the pendulum swing over to the other side. Most likely, the Democrats will retain control of the House and Senate and pick up the White House. There will still be 7 out of 9 Supreme Court Justices appointed by Republicans, but that's not as significant as the other two branches in most cases. Then we'll see how the Democrats handle "absolute power".
The book, however, is hilarious. I strongly recommend it.
So, I don't really think Hillary has a shot. Just sayin'...