"The heading Democrats Defeat Online FOS Act and omission of the Why certainly colours this article."
It did say why. Its in the second sentence of the summary.
The Online Freedom of Speech Act was defeated in the House of Representatives yesterday. The Act would have immunized political bloggers from having to comply with hundreds of pages of FEC rules.
Now what rules other than those dealing with political campaigns would the FEC enforce against political bloggers? If you read the words "Freedom of Speach" and automatically thought they were talking about the heinous act of banning curse words instead of the admirable act of banning talk about politics, thats your problem.
No, it didn't specify exactly why Democrats opposed it, but then again it didn't specify why Republicans supported it, either. Try reading the summary before you cry about how horrible it is that/. sides with the Republicans on one single issue.
Actually, no it is not. From the FA, it is a technique for "fermenting" coffee. It is not just a drink in which coffee and beer are combined, as implied by the article title.
"Coca Cola company *never* got a patent on cola; in fact their recipe is a closely guarded company secret."
And that is generally considered a bad thing. It is generally preferred that companies be open with their processes and file for patents instead of keeping everything secret. If Coke had a revolutionary new patentable process they use while making their drink, they have effectively held back innovation surrounding that process by keeping it a secret.
No, cladistics (along with other phylogenetic classifications), do not use the traditional Kingdom->Phylum->Class->... taxonomy that you refered to in your origional post.
That should have read "...that the origional poster referred to in their origional post." I see you two are indeed two different people.
"So you reject outright the entire concept of cladistics?"
No, cladistics (along with other phylogenetic classifications), do not use the traditional Kingdom->Phylum->Class->... taxonomy that you refered to in your origional post. They use more detailed classifications.
Being able to run a google search does not make you an evolutionary biologist.
"If you don't agree, then your definition of "fish" isn't a clade, so it's a bogus classification. It's ok as a term in common English, but it's not a biologically meaningful classification term."
You are the only one trying to use it as a biological classification. The rest of us are using it to refer to the classes Osteichthyes and Chondrichthyes, as defined by the dictionary.
Well yeah, but most of us young people will never have to worry about that. Unless we are really desperate to collect the couple of cents that will be left in the system for us by the time we retire.
Well technically, I believe no one is supposed to use a person's SSN as an ID number. Which means you should be able to keep that number secret. Which means virtually every organization uses a person's SSN as an ID number.
Although I have also seen organizations (including banks) that use even less secure information to verify someone is who they say they are. For instance there are those "Secret questions" for resetting forgotten passwords. Its one thing to send the password in an email as long as the user knows someone's mother's maiden name, but I've seen some sites that will allow you to reset the password on the spot with only that information.
No, actually, it doesn't. There is a relation between an organism's taxonomic relation and its evolutionary acestory, but it is not to scale, so to speak. Two species in a particular order should share a common ancestory that a species in a different order will not share, but that does not imply that sharing an order implies a certain degree of relation (as compared to a family tree in which pairs of cousins will always have the same ancestor exactly two generations back).
Evolution is a continous thing. Its not like 2 billion years ago all the little organisms got together and decided "lets all divide up to different kingdoms", then a couple millions years later decided it was time to divide into phylums, etc. I'm sure you will agree thats just silly. Different groups evolved at different rates at different points in time, and as such organisms will not divide up neatly into a clean evenly spaced phylogenetic tree. Thus while they all share the distinction of being classes under phylum Chordata, subphylum Vertebrata, fish (jawed and boned), reptiles, amphibians, birds, and mammals did not all evolve from a single unique common ancestor. Reptiles and birds, for instance, are closely related having only seperated (relatively) recently, while the group that eventually formed the true mammals and monotremes seperated out much earlier. And then we all seperated from the fish long, long ago.
Professor MacKerron said: "The guide is designed for groups of people to get together, whether in a school, village hall or the local pub, to discuss the subject. You do not have to have any specialist knowledge on radioactive waste to take part."
You know, maybe I'm crazy, but I sort of would prefer that those deciding what to do with radioactive waste have specialist knowledge of the subject.
1. Any of numerous cold-blooded aquatic vertebrates of the superclass Pisces, characteristically having fins, gills, and a streamlined body and including specifically:
1. Any of the class Osteichthyes, having a bony skeleton.
2. Any of the class Chondrichthyes, having a cartilaginous skeleton and including the sharks, rays, and skates.
Since the poster never claimed sharks were bony fish, your point is moot. No mistake was made.
"Of course, since chondrichythes (cartilaginous fish) and osteichythes (bony fish) still contain the word chythes (fish), sharks are still refered to as 'fish' but biologically, they're just as different as the other classes."
No, sharks and bony fish are much more closely related than sharks and mammals, birds and mammals, or even amphibians and modern day reptiles. Just because two pairs of animals are the same distance from each other in a taxonomic classificiation does not mean they are the same distance from each other in terms of relation.
In case you missed it, in this thread we were talking about real life, not life in a television show. But thats going on my new "You might be a nerd if..." list:
You might be a nerd if... you get visibly upset if someone you are talking to hasn't seen a particular episode of a television show.
I prefer considering the origin of life 3.5 billion years ago. But thats just because I believe in the radical idea of "Biogenesis" as argued by Louis Pasteur, as opposed to spontaneous generation.
Obligatory South Park reference
on
How Zombies Work
·
· Score: 1
Hotline Voice: Worcestershire sauce emergency hotline, this call might be monitored to ensure you the highest quality service, how may I help you?
Kyle: There's a bunch of zombies here!
Hotline Voice: Please hold. ....
Hotline Voice: For regular sauce, the first thing you need to do is make sure that you do not just go out and start decapitating zombies left and right. Do you understand? Do not start decapitating zombies left and right!
Kyle: Uh, okay. Then what?
Hotline Voice: All you have to do is kill the original zombie. The one that started the whole mess. Once you kill the original zombie, all the others zombies will turn back to normal.
Kyle: Original zombie? Well, how the hell do we know who the original zombie is?!
Hotline Voice: We realize you have a choice in worcestershire sauces, we are delighted that....
You are told what basically happens. Roland and company fight John Farson's army, everyone dies but Roland, the Horn of Eld is lost, etc. The rest of it is left to the imagination (which King assumes his readers have). I mean you are not exactly told how the hotel in The Shining came to be haunted.
Stephen King was planning to write a lot more, but was unable to due to the fact that he recently realized he was mortal. He had to get his story down, and now that he is finished (isn't he officially retired now?), he can direct other people to expand the world he had created.
"Then they choose a time zone that plenty of people don't know (judging by the other comments)."
So are you claiming that this will happen in one time zone but no others? That is, if you live in the Eastern United States, you can just look up to the sky and see it, while if you live anywhere else you will see nothing (unless you adjust your clock)?
"
My point was that Hastert providing a comments section would give people the impression that Republicans aren't afraid of criticism. The latest news hasn't been too good for the GOP and their members are showing that they are a bit thin skinned."
I doubt those will go anywhere unless a significant number of Democratic congressmen created blogs that allowed comments. And I believe if they tried, they would quickly find out why the speaker didn't allow comments on his. I mean if you think/. trolls are bad...
"
That is an uneven fight, don't you think? Compare the power of the Speaker of the House to a mother who has been evacuated from New Orleans and has nothing left because the hurricanes have taken it. Are you seriously comparing powerful Congressional members and their interests with individuals?"
It is certainly possible that individuals could create blogs that become well read. There was that guy in Iraq who became huge in the months leading to the Iraq war, and the bloggers who brought up questions regarding the Bush national guard memos were tiny compared to ABC. And it is much easier for someone to become big through blogs than through the old method, handing out newsletters and shouting at people at street corners.
Futhermore, do we necessarily want everyone's blogs to be seen at an equal level? Regardless of whether or not you agree with Hastert's positions, he is an important man in our nation's politics, while I personally have no interest in reading the positions of the various trolls running around here.
"
Actually it was 404 when I tried it the first time."
Wow, enough people were interested in voting that the wikipedia couldn't handle the traffic. That is impressive.:)
Unless they were really just looking up information about the people of Votia.
And if he had a comment section which you frequented, you would most likely be just another libertarian who posts comments to someone else's blog. Would that be any better? As it is, you are perfectly free to post your objections to whatever he has to say, even if no one else decides to read it. The Internet makes it easier for people to voice their ideas as virtually anyone can say what they want to say, yet at the same time it makes it more difficult as you have to compete with the rest of the world.
And I believe you misread the link I gave, as it has nothing to do with writing letters, unless you are out of your district come the Tuesday after the first Monday in November. And considering your second paragraph, you probably wouldn't object to this method all that much.
Start your own blog. Its free, easy, and you can say virtually anything you want. And if you want to respond in a way in which he will be forced to listen, we have a way to do that as well. Its just not as popular with younger generations.
"You started out with the claim that all the principal did was prohibit the students from posting information about the school. I quote:"
Thats funny, I do not recall using the word "all", and it doesn't even appear in the text you quoted. Nice strawman, but next time don't include the quote. Obviously virtually any rule/law/policy can be broadly applied such additional activities end up being prohibited.
"What "but"? Where is "there"?"
Fine. "While..., it does...". Same effect.
"That's definitely in the context of the ban."
No, RTFA again. Its in the context of describing how the kids use these sites.
It is clear to anyone objectively reading the article that this was not meant to be a ban on all blogging technology, but rather the ban of a specific type of site used by high school students to post personal (and thus potentially dangerous information), including information relating to the school itself. This is new policy coming out of an existing rule protecting the school.
Blogging wasn't even identified on its own, but rather as a feature of these sites. But of course/. has to make everything a blown up political issue.
"The fact is that the article explicitly states that the principal forbade the students to have blogs"
Actually it doesn't. It only mentions the word "blog" twice, and the only one that was in the context of any ban was in the sentence "Effective immediately, and over student complaints, the teens were told to dismantle their Myspace.com accounts or similar sites with personal profiles and blogs." The term "blog" stretches well beyond personal diaries like those on Myspace.com. Its clear from this and the statements by the principle that the ban is intended the only be concerned with a particular type of blog which are used to stalk school kids. Whether this was clarified by the principal in his initial statement to the school and left out of the article (it was not exactly well written) or if this was yet another instance of a person in authority having a rather narrow and incorrect view of the technology is not clear.
As far as your analysis of the mentioning of the handbook goes, that would be possible if not for the word "but" in there.
...you will be less likely to make an ass of yourself.
While Pope John's school handbook does not specifically forbid students from creating personal profiles on Web sites, it does prohibit students from posting anything on the Internet pertaining to the school, without the school's permission.
Isn't literacy fun?
Seriously, this is a very short article, but from reading the responses on/. it appears no one was able to finish it. Thats really sad.
Slashdot Mirror
It did say why. Its in the second sentence of the summary.
Now what rules other than those dealing with political campaigns would the FEC enforce against political bloggers? If you read the words "Freedom of Speach" and automatically thought they were talking about the heinous act of banning curse words instead of the admirable act of banning talk about politics, thats your problem.
No, it didn't specify exactly why Democrats opposed it, but then again it didn't specify why Republicans supported it, either. Try reading the summary before you cry about how horrible it is that /. sides with the Republicans on one single issue.
Actually, no it is not. From the FA, it is a technique for "fermenting" coffee. It is not just a drink in which coffee and beer are combined, as implied by the article title.
"Coca Cola company *never* got a patent on cola; in fact their recipe is a closely guarded company secret."
And that is generally considered a bad thing. It is generally preferred that companies be open with their processes and file for patents instead of keeping everything secret. If Coke had a revolutionary new patentable process they use while making their drink, they have effectively held back innovation surrounding that process by keeping it a secret.
His was a beer with coffee flavoring if I remember the show correctly. This is coffee made in a similar fashion as beer. They are entirely different.
And hyperactivity certainly isn't going to lead to worse code than struggling to stay awake.
That should have read "...that the origional poster referred to in their origional post." I see you two are indeed two different people.
No, cladistics (along with other phylogenetic classifications), do not use the traditional Kingdom->Phylum->Class->... taxonomy that you refered to in your origional post. They use more detailed classifications.
Being able to run a google search does not make you an evolutionary biologist.
"If you don't agree, then your definition of "fish" isn't a clade, so it's a bogus classification. It's ok as a term in common English, but it's not a biologically meaningful classification term."
You are the only one trying to use it as a biological classification. The rest of us are using it to refer to the classes Osteichthyes and Chondrichthyes, as defined by the dictionary.
Well yeah, but most of us young people will never have to worry about that. Unless we are really desperate to collect the couple of cents that will be left in the system for us by the time we retire.
Although I have also seen organizations (including banks) that use even less secure information to verify someone is who they say they are. For instance there are those "Secret questions" for resetting forgotten passwords. Its one thing to send the password in an email as long as the user knows someone's mother's maiden name, but I've seen some sites that will allow you to reset the password on the spot with only that information.
Evolution is a continous thing. Its not like 2 billion years ago all the little organisms got together and decided "lets all divide up to different kingdoms", then a couple millions years later decided it was time to divide into phylums, etc. I'm sure you will agree thats just silly. Different groups evolved at different rates at different points in time, and as such organisms will not divide up neatly into a clean evenly spaced phylogenetic tree. Thus while they all share the distinction of being classes under phylum Chordata, subphylum Vertebrata, fish (jawed and boned), reptiles, amphibians, birds, and mammals did not all evolve from a single unique common ancestor. Reptiles and birds, for instance, are closely related having only seperated (relatively) recently, while the group that eventually formed the true mammals and monotremes seperated out much earlier. And then we all seperated from the fish long, long ago.
You know, maybe I'm crazy, but I sort of would prefer that those deciding what to do with radioactive waste have specialist knowledge of the subject.
Definition of a fish"
1. Any of numerous cold-blooded aquatic vertebrates of the superclass Pisces, characteristically having fins, gills, and a streamlined body and including specifically: 1. Any of the class Osteichthyes, having a bony skeleton. 2. Any of the class Chondrichthyes, having a cartilaginous skeleton and including the sharks, rays, and skates.
Since the poster never claimed sharks were bony fish, your point is moot. No mistake was made.
"Of course, since chondrichythes (cartilaginous fish) and osteichythes (bony fish) still contain the word chythes (fish), sharks are still refered to as 'fish' but biologically, they're just as different as the other classes."
No, sharks and bony fish are much more closely related than sharks and mammals, birds and mammals, or even amphibians and modern day reptiles. Just because two pairs of animals are the same distance from each other in a taxonomic classificiation does not mean they are the same distance from each other in terms of relation.
You might be a nerd if... you get visibly upset if someone you are talking to hasn't seen a particular episode of a television show.
And your revised URL isn't doing much better.
I prefer considering the origin of life 3.5 billion years ago. But thats just because I believe in the radical idea of "Biogenesis" as argued by Louis Pasteur, as opposed to spontaneous generation.
I never said it was lost forever.
Hotline Voice: Worcestershire sauce emergency hotline, this call might be monitored to ensure you the highest quality service, how may I help you?
....
Kyle: There's a bunch of zombies here!
Hotline Voice: Please hold.
Hotline Voice: For regular sauce, the first thing you need to do is make sure that you do not just go out and start decapitating zombies left and right. Do you understand? Do not start decapitating zombies left and right!
Kyle: Uh, okay. Then what?
Hotline Voice: All you have to do is kill the original zombie. The one that started the whole mess. Once you kill the original zombie, all the others zombies will turn back to normal.
Kyle: Original zombie? Well, how the hell do we know who the original zombie is?!
Hotline Voice: We realize you have a choice in worcestershire sauces, we are delighted that....
You are told what basically happens. Roland and company fight John Farson's army, everyone dies but Roland, the Horn of Eld is lost, etc. The rest of it is left to the imagination (which King assumes his readers have). I mean you are not exactly told how the hotel in The Shining came to be haunted.
Stephen King was planning to write a lot more, but was unable to due to the fact that he recently realized he was mortal. He had to get his story down, and now that he is finished (isn't he officially retired now?), he can direct other people to expand the world he had created.
This site is under construction and coming soon"?
Yeah, you would have to be a nutcase to post somewhere that doesn't exist.
So are you claiming that this will happen in one time zone but no others? That is, if you live in the Eastern United States, you can just look up to the sky and see it, while if you live anywhere else you will see nothing (unless you adjust your clock)?
I doubt those will go anywhere unless a significant number of Democratic congressmen created blogs that allowed comments. And I believe if they tried, they would quickly find out why the speaker didn't allow comments on his. I mean if you think /. trolls are bad...
" That is an uneven fight, don't you think? Compare the power of the Speaker of the House to a mother who has been evacuated from New Orleans and has nothing left because the hurricanes have taken it. Are you seriously comparing powerful Congressional members and their interests with individuals?"
It is certainly possible that individuals could create blogs that become well read. There was that guy in Iraq who became huge in the months leading to the Iraq war, and the bloggers who brought up questions regarding the Bush national guard memos were tiny compared to ABC. And it is much easier for someone to become big through blogs than through the old method, handing out newsletters and shouting at people at street corners.
Futhermore, do we necessarily want everyone's blogs to be seen at an equal level? Regardless of whether or not you agree with Hastert's positions, he is an important man in our nation's politics, while I personally have no interest in reading the positions of the various trolls running around here.
" Actually it was 404 when I tried it the first time."
Wow, enough people were interested in voting that the wikipedia couldn't handle the traffic. That is impressive. :)
Unless they were really just looking up information about the people of Votia.
And I believe you misread the link I gave, as it has nothing to do with writing letters, unless you are out of your district come the Tuesday after the first Monday in November. And considering your second paragraph, you probably wouldn't object to this method all that much.
Start your own blog. Its free, easy, and you can say virtually anything you want. And if you want to respond in a way in which he will be forced to listen, we have a way to do that as well. Its just not as popular with younger generations.
Thats funny, I do not recall using the word "all", and it doesn't even appear in the text you quoted. Nice strawman, but next time don't include the quote. Obviously virtually any rule/law/policy can be broadly applied such additional activities end up being prohibited.
"What "but"? Where is "there"?"
Fine. "While ..., it does...". Same effect.
"That's definitely in the context of the ban."
No, RTFA again. Its in the context of describing how the kids use these sites.
It is clear to anyone objectively reading the article that this was not meant to be a ban on all blogging technology, but rather the ban of a specific type of site used by high school students to post personal (and thus potentially dangerous information), including information relating to the school itself. This is new policy coming out of an existing rule protecting the school.
Blogging wasn't even identified on its own, but rather as a feature of these sites. But of course /. has to make everything a blown up political issue.
Actually it doesn't. It only mentions the word "blog" twice, and the only one that was in the context of any ban was in the sentence "Effective immediately, and over student complaints, the teens were told to dismantle their Myspace.com accounts or similar sites with personal profiles and blogs." The term "blog" stretches well beyond personal diaries like those on Myspace.com. Its clear from this and the statements by the principle that the ban is intended the only be concerned with a particular type of blog which are used to stalk school kids. Whether this was clarified by the principal in his initial statement to the school and left out of the article (it was not exactly well written) or if this was yet another instance of a person in authority having a rather narrow and incorrect view of the technology is not clear.
As far as your analysis of the mentioning of the handbook goes, that would be possible if not for the word "but" in there.
Obviously this policy was a reference to that rule or there would be no point in mentioning the handbook.
Isn't literacy fun?
Seriously, this is a very short article, but from reading the responses on /. it appears no one was able to finish it. Thats really sad.