Please describe any objections you have to the citizens of Washington D.C. and Puerto Rico having no voting representation in Congress and any remedies you propose for those objections.
You effectively say, "obese people don't do anything to remedy to their condition." This is not only incorrect, but hateful.
In addition, you oversimplify the problem.
Certain viruses may trigger a famine response in infected persons, leading to weight gain. (http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v29/n3/abs/0802830a.html) Genetic predisposition to obesity is well-documented. (http://www.cdc.gov/genomics/training/perspectives/obesity.htm) City-planning can encourage or discourage people from self-powered locomotion and thus have a significant effect on obesity. (http://www.biketexas.org/content/view/917/442/)
While it is true at an absolute level that if people reduce their caloric intake below caloric expenditures, they will lose weight, this is not always a healthy option.
As a side note, I eat massive amounts of carbs (which you seem to correlate with "junk" food) yet remain somewhat underweight. I tend to attribute this to metabolic predisposition.
On your first point you are certainly right. I am woefully ignorant particularly in regards to logical fallacy.
My understanding is that one form of straw man is misstating another person's argument and refuting that misstatement. You refer to the disruption of governmental activity otherwise directed towards relief. The parent referred to talking about Chinese oppression on slashdot.
I need further explanation on the other two. Is your last sentence in support of the suggestion that I have included a proof by example fallacy?
Finally, I have a question to the earlier point. Do you believe that this disaster in China should in some way preclude us from talking about human rights abuses in China?
As I write this, your comment is moderated 4: insightful. I disagree. Instead, it seems to be a bald assertion without supporting logic or evidence.
The nature of totalitarian regimes requires they exploit a threat to cow the populace. (see Iraq, Myanmar, China, USSR) This requirement often extends beyond totalitarian regimes to others who would limit rights. (see Civil War suspension of habeus, WWII Japanese internment, Guantanamo) You ignore by way of a straw man a fundamental problem of allowing anyone, for any period, to suppress your rights: the rights turn into privileges--luxuries for better times. I agree that you cannot enjoy a right when you are dead. I believe a comparably hyerbolic statement would be "what good is life if it is controlled cradle to grave by someone else?"
Certainly, the onset of a crisis does not preclude the discussion of human rights violations. Those violations have not paused in Myanmar and China. We must be vigilant in opposing human rights violations. Even when they cease, we should continue to talk about them; upholding the conversation keeps the memory fresh.
I see it often assumed here that because there are strong limits on government regulation of speech, any regulation of speech, self-imposed or socially-imposed, is not only unwarranted, but anathema. What is disturbing to me is that posters in this thread are effectively saying, "I can screw up your child, so I will." While I value personal liberties, I believe in responsible exercise. I therefore sympathize with your objection to the magazines. Moreover, I won't swear or talk about sex in front your child, not because of any bargain, but because it is the right thing to do.
Sorry to drift off-topic, but I found your response instructive.
Do you have any recommendations regarding introductory texts to neuroscience?
Much obliged,
Abe
Re:Makes a little bit of sense. . .
on
Treating the Dead
·
· Score: 1
You've identified the trend, but not the values. Current standard is 30 compressions and 2 breaths. (Some research suggests no breaths at all would be even better. Red Cross has yet to concur.) It hasn't been a 3:1 ratio in quite a while. Taking the class once a year is a good plan, both for the knowledge and the legal protection afforded to those who are currently certified..
No lawyer worth his salt would seriously argue that the power button is a key. Moreover, a court would be incredibly unlikely to enforce a contract that has no option for rejection (e.g. Esc to reject, any other key to continue).
The ending was brilliant. I thought the last movie send-up was a bit thin, but the closing monologue was far better than any of the much-heralded drama of the GTA series. It was also an excellent way to bring an end to the cartridge era.
In it's entirety, the game ranks among my favorites of any platform at any time.
Sadly, I played the demo of the Xbox version, which focused on a bit of action in the fortress towards the end. Instead of the ominous timbre of the N64 version, the game played as a platform shooter. There was an enemy around each corner. Actually, there were three enemies around each corner. It was lame.
You don't need Matrox, Voodoo, or nVidia. You also don't need multiple machines. One of the big promises of PCI Express is the ability to run multiple graphics cards at full speed. There are plenty of mobos that have 2 x16 slots, and newegg has one that has three.
I fancy the the idea of driving one 19" panel from one card and two 15" panels rotated 90 degrees on the second. The 1024 on long side of a 1024x768 15" panel is similar length to the 1024 on the short side of a 1280x1024 19" panel.
Quite a troll. I'm responding here for the folks who agree.
The heart of the argument is:
*people do stupid things for political correctness
*therefore all things that are politcally correct are wrong
This is logically fallacious.
I agree that Native American is inaccurate. I think a more appropriate method of reference includes the migratory movement. Thus something along the lines of "Americans of Land Bridge Migration Ancestry." This is, however, far too long for practical use.
I think the point of the boycott is to highlight American colonialism, not ameliorate it.
Lastly, as DarrenN pointed out, Germany on the whole does not try to bury the Holocaust. There is a loud and visible minority of deniers. An idea that periodically strikes me is that perhaps it is the rigid and early education regarding the Holocaust the makes denial so appealing. I don't imagine it is easy for schoolchildren to deal with the curriculum. Could denial of the Holocaust be, in part, a coping mechanism?
The first clause of your second sentence seems to invalidate the rest of your comment. Either the actions of some Apache have bearing on the morality of Native American genocide or they don't.
How well does it stand up when we say, for example, "Yeah, we did some some bad things in Vietnam, but those Vietnamese were really bad guys."
If your last sentence could be paraphrased, "Why is this news?" I share your question.
If you are saying you don't understand why people are offended, I would suggest that it is due to a dichotomy between games and death. Most definitions of game include notions of entertainment and play. Most conceptions of killing and racial stereotypes do not include notions of entertainment and play. Though the concept of murder in gaming is not new (think chess), the graphic portrayals of it are. It is not so much that people are too sensitive these days as people have not adjusted to current cultural trends.
I agree with caveats. I think we must retain an awareness of our ancestors' actions on our current state. Racial, sexual, and religious minorites and women all suffer disadvantages that have historic roots. To write off responsibility in a cultural rather personal sense dooms us to fail in our efforts to address these disadvantages.
Blame radiates. In the case of the Christian bomber, I blame the bomber, but also the people who inculcated him, helped him plan, and made the bomb. In the case of the flunky, I blame him and whoever created the policy.
If you don't support a war, it is your responsibility to withhold tax money if you want to be blameless. You could go to prison for it, but couldn't the tax collector be punished for not collecting taxes?
The key is that tracing blame is counter-productive, particularly if you're not religious. Blame is a tool to track who's been naughty and nice.
This isn't to say you shouldn't recall that your cat will piss in the toaster. It's just that you should remember it so you remember to feed your cat rather than to perform any vindictive deed.
What should you do after 366 days? Continue to use it for free. They're giving away perpetual licenses for one year. The license remains valid after the year.
Second, you probably aren't buying MS windows just to develop. In fact, you've probably already got it. If you're developing with VS, you've likely already got access to a MS windows box.
Finally, Java isn't a mature language either, and c#'s rate of change isn't really a problem for many of us. Sometimes adaptation is an advantage.
The way you construct the situation in the first paragraph makes it a sexual discrimination issue. After all, if a man can marry a woman, shouldn't a woman enjoy those same rights? This is more or less what got the Texas sodomy statute overturned. (It specifically outlawed male-male sodomy.)
As to your question, a quick googling of polygamy and "gay marriage" gives you the arguments on both sides.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll try spinning. That's a neat trick.
Please describe any objections you have to the citizens of Washington D.C. and Puerto Rico having no voting representation in Congress and any remedies you propose for those objections.
You effectively say, "obese people don't do anything to remedy to their condition." This is not only incorrect, but hateful.
In addition, you oversimplify the problem.
Certain viruses may trigger a famine response in infected persons, leading to weight gain. (http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v29/n3/abs/0802830a.html) Genetic predisposition to obesity is well-documented. (http://www.cdc.gov/genomics/training/perspectives/obesity.htm) City-planning can encourage or discourage people from self-powered locomotion and thus have a significant effect on obesity. (http://www.biketexas.org/content/view/917/442/)
While it is true at an absolute level that if people reduce their caloric intake below caloric expenditures, they will lose weight, this is not always a healthy option.
As a side note, I eat massive amounts of carbs (which you seem to correlate with "junk" food) yet remain somewhat underweight. I tend to attribute this to metabolic predisposition.
Thank goodness we have finally found a spokeperson who can speak authoritatively for all American First Peoples.
On your first point you are certainly right. I am woefully ignorant particularly in regards to logical fallacy.
My understanding is that one form of straw man is misstating another person's argument and refuting that misstatement. You refer to the disruption of governmental activity otherwise directed towards relief. The parent referred to talking about Chinese oppression on slashdot.
I need further explanation on the other two. Is your last sentence in support of the suggestion that I have included a proof by example fallacy?
Finally, I have a question to the earlier point. Do you believe that this disaster in China should in some way preclude us from talking about human rights abuses in China?
As I write this, your comment is moderated 4: insightful. I disagree. Instead, it seems to be a bald assertion without supporting logic or evidence.
The nature of totalitarian regimes requires they exploit a threat to cow the populace. (see Iraq, Myanmar, China, USSR) This requirement often extends beyond totalitarian regimes to others who would limit rights. (see Civil War suspension of habeus, WWII Japanese internment, Guantanamo) You ignore by way of a straw man a fundamental problem of allowing anyone, for any period, to suppress your rights: the rights turn into privileges--luxuries for better times. I agree that you cannot enjoy a right when you are dead. I believe a comparably hyerbolic statement would be "what good is life if it is controlled cradle to grave by someone else?"
Certainly, the onset of a crisis does not preclude the discussion of human rights violations. Those violations have not paused in Myanmar and China. We must be vigilant in opposing human rights violations. Even when they cease, we should continue to talk about them; upholding the conversation keeps the memory fresh.
I see it often assumed here that because there are strong limits on government regulation of speech, any regulation of speech, self-imposed or socially-imposed, is not only unwarranted, but anathema. What is disturbing to me is that posters in this thread are effectively saying, "I can screw up your child, so I will." While I value personal liberties, I believe in responsible exercise. I therefore sympathize with your objection to the magazines. Moreover, I won't swear or talk about sex in front your child, not because of any bargain, but because it is the right thing to do.
Sorry to drift off-topic, but I found your response instructive.
Do you have any recommendations regarding introductory texts to neuroscience?
Much obliged,
Abe
You've identified the trend, but not the values. Current standard is 30 compressions and 2 breaths. (Some research suggests no breaths at all would be even better. Red Cross has yet to concur.) It hasn't been a 3:1 ratio in quite a while. Taking the class once a year is a good plan, both for the knowledge and the legal protection afforded to those who are currently certified..
The name of the person is the starred out bit.
Go to Google and punch in "American Red Cross" "30 compressions". The lucky result: a pdf from ARC from 2005 detailing the change.
No actual lawyering here, but still:
No lawyer worth his salt would seriously argue that the power button is a key. Moreover, a court would be incredibly unlikely to enforce a contract that has no option for rejection (e.g. Esc to reject, any other key to continue).
The ending was brilliant. I thought the last movie send-up was a bit thin, but the closing monologue was far better than any of the much-heralded drama of the GTA series. It was also an excellent way to bring an end to the cartridge era.
In it's entirety, the game ranks among my favorites of any platform at any time.
Sadly, I played the demo of the Xbox version, which focused on a bit of action in the fortress towards the end. Instead of the ominous timbre of the N64 version, the game played as a platform shooter. There was an enemy around each corner. Actually, there were three enemies around each corner. It was lame.
Why not redirect My Documents to a network folder? Doing so has saved me a lot of headaches.
You don't need Matrox, Voodoo, or nVidia. You also don't need multiple machines. One of the big promises of PCI Express is the ability to run multiple graphics cards at full speed. There are plenty of mobos that have 2 x16 slots, and newegg has one that has three.
I fancy the the idea of driving one 19" panel from one card and two 15" panels rotated 90 degrees on the second. The 1024 on long side of a 1024x768 15" panel is similar length to the 1024 on the short side of a 1280x1024 19" panel.
Quite a troll. I'm responding here for the folks who agree.
The heart of the argument is:
*people do stupid things for political correctness
*therefore all things that are politcally correct are wrong
This is logically fallacious.
I agree that Native American is inaccurate. I think a more appropriate method of reference includes the migratory movement. Thus something along the lines of "Americans of Land Bridge Migration Ancestry." This is, however, far too long for practical use.
I think the point of the boycott is to highlight American colonialism, not ameliorate it.
Lastly, as DarrenN pointed out, Germany on the whole does not try to bury the Holocaust. There is a loud and visible minority of deniers. An idea that periodically strikes me is that perhaps it is the rigid and early education regarding the Holocaust the makes denial so appealing. I don't imagine it is easy for schoolchildren to deal with the curriculum. Could denial of the Holocaust be, in part, a coping mechanism?
The first clause of your second sentence seems to invalidate the rest of your comment. Either the actions of some Apache have bearing on the morality of Native American genocide or they don't.
How well does it stand up when we say, for example, "Yeah, we did some some bad things in Vietnam, but those Vietnamese were really bad guys."
If your last sentence could be paraphrased, "Why is this news?" I share your question.
If you are saying you don't understand why people are offended, I would suggest that it is due to a dichotomy between games and death. Most definitions of game include notions of entertainment and play. Most conceptions of killing and racial stereotypes do not include notions of entertainment and play. Though the concept of murder in gaming is not new (think chess), the graphic portrayals of it are. It is not so much that people are too sensitive these days as people have not adjusted to current cultural trends.
I agree with caveats. I think we must retain an awareness of our ancestors' actions on our current state. Racial, sexual, and religious minorites and women all suffer disadvantages that have historic roots. To write off responsibility in a cultural rather personal sense dooms us to fail in our efforts to address these disadvantages.
Blame radiates. In the case of the Christian bomber, I blame the bomber, but also the people who inculcated him, helped him plan, and made the bomb. In the case of the flunky, I blame him and whoever created the policy.
If you don't support a war, it is your responsibility to withhold tax money if you want to be blameless. You could go to prison for it, but couldn't the tax collector be punished for not collecting taxes?
The key is that tracing blame is counter-productive, particularly if you're not religious. Blame is a tool to track who's been naughty and nice.
This isn't to say you shouldn't recall that your cat will piss in the toaster. It's just that you should remember it so you remember to feed your cat rather than to perform any vindictive deed.
Yeah. Amazon has been so aggressive about enforcing IP...
Apart from the B&N one-click suit a while back, Amazon seems to be playing the defensive game.
What should you do after 366 days? Continue to use it for free. They're giving away perpetual licenses for one year. The license remains valid after the year.
Second, you probably aren't buying MS windows just to develop. In fact, you've probably already got it. If you're developing with VS, you've likely already got access to a MS windows box.
Finally, Java isn't a mature language either, and c#'s rate of change isn't really a problem for many of us. Sometimes adaptation is an advantage.
The way you construct the situation in the first paragraph makes it a sexual discrimination issue. After all, if a man can marry a woman, shouldn't a woman enjoy those same rights? This is more or less what got the Texas sodomy statute overturned. (It specifically outlawed male-male sodomy.)
As to your question, a quick googling of polygamy and "gay marriage" gives you the arguments on both sides.
GM owns Saab as well. That, coupled with what your mention of the Subaru/Chevrolet Forester implies a growing relationship between GM and Subaru.
Also, I believe Ford does not own Mazda, but rather a large chunk of it.
I was under the impression conventional NTSC is 525i, not 540p. Thus ~60 refreshes/second, but only 30 frames.