So, acquitted or an over-turned verdict and you can get off the list... but simply being arrested and the charges later being dropped? Is there a process for expungement in that situation? This is slashdot so I haven't read the article or the bill but if you read that far and didn't see anything about that it very well could not be in there.
In what universe is adding more middle-men better for the consumer? Scalpers raise ticket prices without adding anything of value, except being able to buy tickets after an event has sold out. This isn't terribly bad so long as scalping is kept down to a minimum. But what if there were no rules in place to limit scalping? What's to stop someone from buying every single ticket, then selling them at double the price? How is that good for anyone?
If people wouldn't pay those prices, they'd very quickly go out of business. If people will pay those prices, the venue probably should raise some/all of the ticket prices to match what the market will support. Higher ticket prices would actually FORCE OUT scalpers -- buy a $30 ticket, resell for $100, that's a good profit margin, that's what keeps scalpers afloat. Buy a $100 ticket that will only sell on the open market for $100, MAYBE $110? I'd love to see scalpers find the profit there.
That was my first thought. This could bring Americans back from the brink of fat jokes and into the forefront of human-powered portable devices -- while slimming us down at the same time. Think about that! No change in lifestyle or habits, but you're thinner AND you don't have to plug your cellphone in ever again!
My second thought was "holy sweet shit I want a laser in my index finger"
Pretty easily. If the cops have access to your DNA, and they're searching through DNA for a suspect, there's a chance they'll hit upon your DNA. If it's not in the database, that's not possible. Imagine the DNA database is a phone book. They're looking for Tom Smith, your name is Jon Smith, they misread things and arrest you. If your name was never in the phone book in the first place, that would never have happened.
Ummm... haha, no. Liberals are only open to new ideas that they like. Berkeley's had many many incidents where speakers have been shouted down or intimidated away and ultimately been unable to speak. That certainly does not strike me as being open to new ideas and productive conversation and debate. Your statement "should" be correct, but weeeeellll it's not. How things work out in the real world is usually closer to conservatives think things are fairly decent as they are, maybe just a few changes here or there, and liberals think things are fairly decent as they are but must be completely changed to something new to improve. And neither side, once they've formed a knee-jerk opinion on a topic, want to debate and discuss their position. Let alone actually think about the greater repercussions (unintended consequences) of their action or inaction.
Actually, that's much LESS communicative. There's no way you can look at your last quote and honestly say that it's not, well, boring and containing an unnecessary adjective. Really, droning? Shouldn't be there. People don't really talk like that, and people try not to write like that unless it's a D&D campaign.
Profanity is a bit like facial expressions and hand motions and vocal tone. There's a lot of meaning being conveyed, but it's hard to exactly put your finger on what it is (and even harder to work out any kind of set rules for any of it). "Have a nice day," or "Have a nice fucking day"? Clearly different meanings, so profanity is not meaningless; and there's really no way to express exactly the meaning behind "Have a nice fucking day" in *any other way*, so profanity is not always a lazy choice of adjectives.
Firstly, um, nobody is being written any tickets for being a fool. This is a situation where people ARE being written tickets for being a fool -- in this case, profanity.
If the government was penalizing being a fool, and the ACLU was suing to protect our constitutional right to be a fool, fuck yes I'd support that.
Your entire argument invoking religion is completely absurd and invalid. It's unrelated and more than a little straw man.
Nonono, you misunderstand slashdot. All posts refer to the previous article on the same topic, as the posts are made before the current topic has been read or researched.
Ah. I see you're talking about selling disc-based games online instead, not just the current WiiWare and Virtual Console online offerings. That might fly in Europe, but I wonder if US infrastructure is really up for that?
lmao... what the hell? Are you actually doubting that AMERICA'S INTERWABZ INFRASTRUCTURE isn't capable of handling people downloading a bunch of console titles?
I don't know many people who game on their Wii frequently.. but I DO know many people who HAVE a Wii. I know one person with a 360. I don't think I actually even know anybody who bought a PS3. No, I take that back. I recall someone saying they were going to pick one up after a price drop as a bluray player.
Yeah, because the 360 and ps3 have games with depth? Their entire catalog can be summed up basically under 3 headings. Lame FPS game that would be better if it was made for a PC, Annual Sports Game, and Newest game knocking off Devil May Cry. That's pretty much it. OH. Sorry. Also music games, but then that's really a party game that's only fun because other people are there.
that's exactly what i said when that first came out. i'm not one to jump to conclusions about nefarious intentions, but the whole thing really just stinks to me.
CERN's conclusions also aren't being used to support massive, massive global economic reorganization efforts.
If CERN released a paper and said that we all need to stop using #2 pencils TO-DAY or there will be no tomorrow.. well, quite frankly we'd need to see that data. It's not a matter of disbelief, it's a matter of accountability. The people whom your conclusions affect do need to see the data, so they can both understand personally WHY, and so the conclusions can be subject to a great deal of scrutiny before any drastic changes are made based upon the conclusions.
If you reach a conclusion that is only relevant to you? Or other scientists in your field? The public doesn't need to see that data. It doesn't directly affect them. But to yell that the world is ending and we all need to stop flushing the toilet to prevent things, and then refusing to show anyone how exactly you reached that conclusion.. yeah, that's a load of shit, even if there's a consensus of $PowerfulPeople who agree it's STILL a load of shit until it's clearly explained and shown why it's the case.
So you're saying it's OK to pander to the "public"? And, you do realize that by "public" i mean "media". The public is far too broad an audience to make any claims like you have -- I'm a member of the public and I cringe every time I hear scientists making fantastic claims based upon small conclusions and results. Their job isn't science fiction. Now, the MEDIA? That's all they want to hear, yes. The more sensational, the better. The more dire, the bigger they can make that headline, the more their publication gets picked up. That's a pretty long-standing tradition in journalism, and one would really hope that scientists wouldn't kowtow to the demands of infotainment-mongers trying to out-shock their competitors.
Ice cores aren't exactly as accurate as we believed or hoped. Tree rings match temperatures only for a relatively short period of time and then stop, and we don't know why. If we figure out why, we'll know if it was caused by something recent and new (humans!) or if it's something else entirely that may have happened before (making tree rings an unreliable source of data, or at best requiring weighing the ring data against whatever it is that's caused it to not match temps recently -- that is, whatever that thing is, we'd have to figure out when/if it happened historically and then adjust the ring data based upon that).
I'm not saying this disproves anything, but I will say loudly that this does mean we're far less sure of exactly what's happening than we thought.
oh and the "climategate" did involve their data -- they 'normalized' their data. which is pretty common and nothing wrong with it! HOWEVER... they won't share the original data (it's been lost, as in, it was thrown out 20-some years ago and only their adjusted data was kept). They've not explained their nomalization process. They've got a set of adjusted data to work with, but we have to trust them that it's actually based upon real data. We have to trust them that their adjustments were made in a proper manner, that their methods were sound.
Science isn't math, science is verifiability. We can't verify their conclusions based upon their data, because the data is gone. This, then, is not science, but faith. Not religious faith, but faith in the infallibility of the scientists -- and these guys, well. Read the conclusion reached by the inquiry. They're not exactly fastidious and methodical.
Basically "your result is correct but your method is completely wrong" is kindspeak for "you manipulated your data until you reached the consensus opinion".
In other words, even if their results were "correct", they're completely unjustified and only "correct" because they match up with generally agreed-upon results from other people. That means the CRU report? It proves absolutely nothing. It does not support AGW, it doesn't refute it either. It's simply bad. If this was a college course they'd probably fail, since correct answers arrived at through incorrect methods are actually incorrect answers that, somehow as dumb luck would have it, match the expected result.
Slashdot Mirror
Woah woah. Don't conflate two different issues. This is the government doing it, so that means it's totally OK.
So, acquitted or an over-turned verdict and you can get off the list... but simply being arrested and the charges later being dropped? Is there a process for expungement in that situation? This is slashdot so I haven't read the article or the bill but if you read that far and didn't see anything about that it very well could not be in there.
And that's kinda frightening.
In what universe is adding more middle-men better for the consumer? Scalpers raise ticket prices without adding anything of value, except being able to buy tickets after an event has sold out. This isn't terribly bad so long as scalping is kept down to a minimum. But what if there were no rules in place to limit scalping? What's to stop someone from buying every single ticket, then selling them at double the price? How is that good for anyone?
If people wouldn't pay those prices, they'd very quickly go out of business. If people will pay those prices, the venue probably should raise some/all of the ticket prices to match what the market will support. Higher ticket prices would actually FORCE OUT scalpers -- buy a $30 ticket, resell for $100, that's a good profit margin, that's what keeps scalpers afloat. Buy a $100 ticket that will only sell on the open market for $100, MAYBE $110? I'd love to see scalpers find the profit there.
I'd be more worried about what the scientists were doing in kids in the first place, but that's just me
That was my first thought. This could bring Americans back from the brink of fat jokes and into the forefront of human-powered portable devices -- while slimming us down at the same time. Think about that! No change in lifestyle or habits, but you're thinner AND you don't have to plug your cellphone in ever again!
My second thought was "holy sweet shit I want a laser in my index finger"
Pretty easily. If the cops have access to your DNA, and they're searching through DNA for a suspect, there's a chance they'll hit upon your DNA. If it's not in the database, that's not possible. Imagine the DNA database is a phone book. They're looking for Tom Smith, your name is Jon Smith, they misread things and arrest you. If your name was never in the phone book in the first place, that would never have happened.
That's not laughable, that's the start of a murder mystery. Few places are as militantly liberal as UC Berkeley.
Ummm... haha, no. Liberals are only open to new ideas that they like. Berkeley's had many many incidents where speakers have been shouted down or intimidated away and ultimately been unable to speak. That certainly does not strike me as being open to new ideas and productive conversation and debate. Your statement "should" be correct, but weeeeellll it's not. How things work out in the real world is usually closer to conservatives think things are fairly decent as they are, maybe just a few changes here or there, and liberals think things are fairly decent as they are but must be completely changed to something new to improve. And neither side, once they've formed a knee-jerk opinion on a topic, want to debate and discuss their position. Let alone actually think about the greater repercussions (unintended consequences) of their action or inaction.
Actually, that's much LESS communicative. There's no way you can look at your last quote and honestly say that it's not, well, boring and containing an unnecessary adjective. Really, droning? Shouldn't be there. People don't really talk like that, and people try not to write like that unless it's a D&D campaign.
Profanity is a bit like facial expressions and hand motions and vocal tone. There's a lot of meaning being conveyed, but it's hard to exactly put your finger on what it is (and even harder to work out any kind of set rules for any of it). "Have a nice day," or "Have a nice fucking day"? Clearly different meanings, so profanity is not meaningless; and there's really no way to express exactly the meaning behind "Have a nice fucking day" in *any other way*, so profanity is not always a lazy choice of adjectives.
Battlestar Galactica, more like Battlesoap Operatica
Firstly, um, nobody is being written any tickets for being a fool. This is a situation where people ARE being written tickets for being a fool -- in this case, profanity.
If the government was penalizing being a fool, and the ACLU was suing to protect our constitutional right to be a fool, fuck yes I'd support that.
Your entire argument invoking religion is completely absurd and invalid. It's unrelated and more than a little straw man.
If that was possible china would be doing it. They're not, so I don't believe it is possible.
Nonono, you misunderstand slashdot.
All posts refer to the previous article on the same topic, as the posts are made before the current topic has been read or researched.
And some would say the last FF game worth its price was FFVI.
well, I would. Do. I say that.
Ah. I see you're talking about selling disc-based games online instead, not just the current WiiWare and Virtual Console online offerings. That might fly in Europe, but I wonder if US infrastructure is really up for that?
lmao... what the hell? Are you actually doubting that AMERICA'S INTERWABZ INFRASTRUCTURE isn't capable of handling people downloading a bunch of console titles?
Like.. seriously? You think that?
I don't know many people who game on their Wii frequently.. but I DO know many people who HAVE a Wii. I know one person with a 360. I don't think I actually even know anybody who bought a PS3.
No, I take that back. I recall someone saying they were going to pick one up after a price drop as a bluray player.
Yeah, because the 360 and ps3 have games with depth? Their entire catalog can be summed up basically under 3 headings. Lame FPS game that would be better if it was made for a PC, Annual Sports Game, and Newest game knocking off Devil May Cry. That's pretty much it. OH. Sorry. Also music games, but then that's really a party game that's only fun because other people are there.
Oh, the days of Apples and IBM-compatibles..
that's exactly what i said when that first came out.
i'm not one to jump to conclusions about nefarious intentions, but the whole thing really just stinks to me.
At least 1 person at any given time knows you're masturbating on Chatroulette.. and I'd thank you to stop.
CERN's conclusions also aren't being used to support massive, massive global economic reorganization efforts.
If CERN released a paper and said that we all need to stop using #2 pencils TO-DAY or there will be no tomorrow.. well, quite frankly we'd need to see that data.
It's not a matter of disbelief, it's a matter of accountability. The people whom your conclusions affect do need to see the data, so they can both understand personally WHY, and so the conclusions can be subject to a great deal of scrutiny before any drastic changes are made based upon the conclusions.
If you reach a conclusion that is only relevant to you? Or other scientists in your field? The public doesn't need to see that data. It doesn't directly affect them. But to yell that the world is ending and we all need to stop flushing the toilet to prevent things, and then refusing to show anyone how exactly you reached that conclusion.. yeah, that's a load of shit, even if there's a consensus of $PowerfulPeople who agree it's STILL a load of shit until it's clearly explained and shown why it's the case.
It would make sense, but good luck with that. CRU threw out their raw data back in the 80's, iirc.
So you're saying it's OK to pander to the "public"? And, you do realize that by "public" i mean "media". The public is far too broad an audience to make any claims like you have -- I'm a member of the public and I cringe every time I hear scientists making fantastic claims based upon small conclusions and results. Their job isn't science fiction.
Now, the MEDIA? That's all they want to hear, yes. The more sensational, the better. The more dire, the bigger they can make that headline, the more their publication gets picked up. That's a pretty long-standing tradition in journalism, and one would really hope that scientists wouldn't kowtow to the demands of infotainment-mongers trying to out-shock their competitors.
From wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core#Paleoatmospheric_sampling
Ice cores aren't exactly as accurate as we believed or hoped. Tree rings match temperatures only for a relatively short period of time and then stop, and we don't know why. If we figure out why, we'll know if it was caused by something recent and new (humans!) or if it's something else entirely that may have happened before (making tree rings an unreliable source of data, or at best requiring weighing the ring data against whatever it is that's caused it to not match temps recently -- that is, whatever that thing is, we'd have to figure out when/if it happened historically and then adjust the ring data based upon that).
I'm not saying this disproves anything, but I will say loudly that this does mean we're far less sure of exactly what's happening than we thought.
oh and the "climategate" did involve their data -- they 'normalized' their data. which is pretty common and nothing wrong with it! HOWEVER... they won't share the original data (it's been lost, as in, it was thrown out 20-some years ago and only their adjusted data was kept). They've not explained their nomalization process. They've got a set of adjusted data to work with, but we have to trust them that it's actually based upon real data. We have to trust them that their adjustments were made in a proper manner, that their methods were sound.
Science isn't math, science is verifiability. We can't verify their conclusions based upon their data, because the data is gone. This, then, is not science, but faith. Not religious faith, but faith in the infallibility of the scientists -- and these guys, well. Read the conclusion reached by the inquiry. They're not exactly fastidious and methodical.
Basically "your result is correct but your method is completely wrong" is kindspeak for "you manipulated your data until you reached the consensus opinion".
In other words, even if their results were "correct", they're completely unjustified and only "correct" because they match up with generally agreed-upon results from other people. That means the CRU report? It proves absolutely nothing. It does not support AGW, it doesn't refute it either. It's simply bad. If this was a college course they'd probably fail, since correct answers arrived at through incorrect methods are actually incorrect answers that, somehow as dumb luck would have it, match the expected result.