No, its perfectly possible (though highly unlikely) for two non-twins to have DNA that tests to be identical (remember we are not comparing the stands nucleotide to nucleotide). Just like with fingerprints.
Anyways, all you are saying is that it is a more accurate test. Why should that make it worse?
How is this different from them collecting fingerprints?
Oh yeah, genetics is a scary new technology whose very mention raises irrational fears.
Sure, this database could be used to intrude on someone's medical conditions. But then again, if some agent of the federal government were inclined to violate the rules governing the use of the database, what would be stopping him from following you around and collecting a sample of your saliva from a soda can or blood from a bandage? Unless you are like the guy from Gattaca and make sure you clean everything you touch...
Dense? Your argument hinged on the US taking action to stop Hitler from speaking his mind. That requires you to prove:
That his enemies put the bullet in his head (which as I noted is false).
That those enemies who took this particular action were the US government, even though all historical records put the Russians in Germany at the time.
That the actions were to prevent him from making speeches or selling books, not to defend European nations or to stop the Holocaust.
And that Bill O'Reilly disagreeing with you on a few policial issues is comparable to Hitler's Nazi philosophy.
In reality all four of those are false. What, do Canadian schools not require their students to take history classes? Down here we studied all this in middle school and again in high school.
Re:Why did you quit visiting Yahoo?
on
YahooTV
·
· Score: 1
"
I quit visiting Yahoo when I got disgusted about getting paid ads, presented in a very sneaky way. Did they change that? Is it safe to visit again? "
Sure, if you use ad blocking software in your browser.
"
A yahoo "is a crude or brutish person". Lesson: Don't trust programmers to name a company. Programmers will invent a name that sounds to them like a great intelligent joke, but causes problems later. How many people who aren't computer professionals know that the joke is "Yet Another Hierarchically Ordered Oracle"? "
How many people total associate the word "Yahoo" with the definition you quoted? To most people it is just an exclamation, and even to those who know the other meaning generally associate it with the exclamation.
I guess you didn't get my point so I'll repeat it one last time. It doesn't matter if you call them shills, shrills, or whatever. Namecalling like an 13 year old doesn't change the fact that what you are advocating is blatant censorship. Its funny that you bring up the "Great Firewall of China", because they use the exact same reasoning (that their people are not educated enough to see past the "lies" spread by the evil democracies) to justify the exact same steps you advocate taking.
You know, the reason most people bring up public airways is because of a general feeling that since they are essentially controlled by the FCC, they should be entirely unbiased. But you apparently consider the public airways special because of their popularity, and now that cable is also popular you feel people with whom you disagree should be banned from it as well. So if someone's blog becomes too popular do you think they should be banned from the Internet? What, did you read 1984 and thought it was an educational piece?
I can only pray the rest of your countrymen have a better respect for the rights of the press than you.
"You're so wrong. I haven't said that, what I'm saying is that government shills should not be allowed on public airwaves."
Neither O'Reilly nor Stewart are on the public airwaves, genius. They are both on cable.
And using the phrase "government shrills" to describe those you disagree with doesn't change a thing. You are still advocating censorship. Sorry, but you are twice the enemy of the free press than O'Reilly ever was.
BTW, do you know where I first heard the name "Bill O'Reilly"? On your hero's show, The Daily Show, he interviewed him a few times.
"Murdoch or whoever allows someone to tell lies for the government on an "independent" news channel is ruining your freedom of the press."
Are you Rupert Murdoch? No? Well then you can't tell him who he hires to be on his cable news channel.
"Fox News would never broadcast something that speaks against Bush and if you don't realize that's what makes the difference in this case, then you've lost sight of the goal of a free press."
Yeah, because people like Alan Colmes and Neal Gabler would never speak against Bush.
"You'd actually advocate giving racists, liars, and government shills who've been caught lying multiple times, air time?"
No. But if someone were willing to give them air time I'd defend their right to use it against people like you demanding their banishment. Thats called freedom of speech. Ever hear the saying "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend your right to say it"? Obviously not.
"As soon as Bush is out of power and media organizations don't feel as threatened, they'll start reporting the truths they've been holding back from the public and you'll be crying out to suppress the truth."
Well I'm sure your tin foil hat will give you good protection until that day.
"
Because at the end of the day it's not the hat you wear, it's the good you do. And right now Jon is good for the American free press, and Bill O' is very bad."
Considering what you seem to think "free press" means (only people you agree with can get on TV, and anyone who speaks against that is banned for life), I'm sure Jon Stewart would be offended by that.
"I'm not taking away Bill's right to speak [on a blog or on the street {or *gasp* even TV}], I'm asking that he be taken off the air in a context where gullible people think he's *NEWS* and not ego stroking entertainment for doofi."
You mean like how you think the Daily Show is news? Most people understand that he is airing opinions not news, even if you don't, much like a columnist writing for a newspaper. Or do you think the editorial pages should be moved because "people might get confused"?
BTW, that thing you are advocating, telling people when and where they can and cannot speak, it has a name. Its called "censorship", and most supporters of the free press don't care for it that much.
Even if your little conspiracy theory is true, it doesn't matter. Under a free press, you don't get to choose who gets on the air and who doesn't. Thats really the definition of a free press. You can't ban him from the airwaves just because you disagree with him on something. Thats called censorship.
BTW, it truly is sad that when its time for you to come up with the name of a journalist, the best you can do is Jon Stewart. He hosts a parody news show on Comedy Central, not a real one.
"We need to start demanding more from our journalists, and stop allowing people like Bill O'Idiot of Fox News to have air time.... They don't realize that he's a government mouthpiece, and is essentially the anti-free press."
Something about that doesn't quite add up, I just can't put my finger on it...
Its like there is some contradiction in there, some blatant example of hypocrisy...
Oh well, its late, maybe I'll get it in the morning.
"Katrina was accurately predicted. That is why they started evac of NOLA 2 days ahead of time (a none prediction would have waited until it hit)."
No they didn't. They knew it would hit in the Gulf around New Orleans, but it acutally hit well east of most estimates. And those came only days before, you are talking about predicting climate changes decades from now.
"The fact that glaciers all over the world are shrinking at an unheard of rate is absolute proof"
The fact that you haven't heard of such rates doesn't make them unheard of.
"Then there are plenty of pix of glaciers from 100 years ago, that clearly show they were much larger. Google a bit."
So your source is the results of an Internet search. Now thats science.
"In fact, the only ice that is growing is Antarctica which the models clearly showed would happen due to increased moisture in the air (it is still DAMN cold there)."
I love it when peoplt contradict themselves. Clearly glaciers all over the world are not shrinking if the (by a huge margin) largest source of glacier ice is increasing.
"
The real issue is not Global Warming (which even your leader has now accepted as happening). The issues are
1. how is it occurring
2. are we a major or minor issue with it
3. How far will it go, if changes are not effected.
4. And what happens?"
In other words we don't know anything useful about it.
Well if you read the IEEE article that this article was referencing, you would see that they have already considered that. This thing would probably be placed out in the middle of the Pacific, and its not that easy to launch a terrorist attack out in the middle of nowhere.
As for it falling on a town, the lower part would fall into the ocean, possibly burning up on the way down (depending on where it was cut). But the business end, with the counterweight and way station and all that, would suddenly have its center of gravity moved up above geostationary orbit, so it would fly out into space. Of course anyone on it at the time would want to get off, and you would lose a large investment, but it is unlikely it would be the catastrophe you imagine.
The point isn't that we should drop the entire space program and work on the space elevator, but rather have the space elevator (rather than decade old rocket technology) be the cornerstone of ambitious projects like getting back to the moon.
"
NASA is taking the correct approach. They are building something that they *know* works first. They can then work out the pixie dust^H^H space elevator next."
Why? Whats the hurry? Would it really be the end of the world if we didn't get back to the Moon by 2020? Is this a critical mission whose failure would jeopardize national security?
No, its a 100 billion dollar PR stunt. The best argument you can make for it is that in the process we are developing new technologies and discovering new ideas, but in that case wouldn't it make more sense to go with the new untested but potentially revolutionary technology than what is effectively the same thing we used 36 years ago? Doesn't going with what you know works completely defeat the point?
"How about before mp3 players? How many cd players had built-in radios? Very few."
Looking at Best Buy, more than a few (although that of course is not before mp3 players, but portable radios are not exactly a new technology so I doubt it was that different a few years ago). And I do remember my old walkman had a radio that I used all the time, so it is not a new concept.
But so what? My point was that there was a very small market for mp3 players before the iPod but Apple was able to build one around their product. Why can't they do the same thing for a video player?
Yeah, but how many times can you listen to all those Bon Jovi and Great White CDs you bought back in the 80's?
Out of curiosity, how many people were buying CDs back then? I was too young through most of the 80's to know, but I do seem to remember cassette tapes being the medium of choice. CDs just looked like tiny laser-discs to us.
There are legitimate reasons to want seperation. I don't want to have to pay for a bad music player just because it came linked with the cell phone I wanted. And what happens if I can't bring my cell phone with me somewhere because it cannot be seperated from a camera which is banned from a certain area?
Of course some things like a mp3 player and a radio make sense together. Apple's claim that there hasn't been much of a market for such devices is strange considering what the market was for mp3 players before the iPod. And if I can get a combo video player/radio/voice recorder/photo viewer/mp3 player (which sounds better) for the same price as a pretty iPod, I'll go with the functionality over the fad. But thats just me.
"I'm afraid you are simply incorrect about labor laws not applying at all. Among other conditions for a computer related job to be declared exempt, here's a quote from the US Department of Labor website's computer related ocupations page..."
Thats funny, I don't remember saying that no labor laws applied to exempt employees, only laws like minimum wage. Oh no, thats right, that exactly what I said, jackass.
"Of course, you're incorrect about German unemployment anyway - according to the German Federal Foreign Office [tatsachen-...schland.de] website, unemployment is currently at 9.8%, and at 7.6% if you only look at the former West Germany. High, but not double digit. France is barely in double digits at 10.1%, according to the CIA World Factbook."
You know, it takes a special kind of stupidity to post a link to an article containing 2002 numbers and claim that is the current situation. As recently as last March Germany's unemployment rate was well over 12%. Maybe it has dramatically fallen by a few points recently (I don't follow the day to day status of European economies), but it is still unbelievably high. And are you trying to claim that stating a 10% unemployment rate is double digits is exaggerating the situation?
And obviously I wasn't talking about only West Germany. Of course some regions are going to have lower unemployment rates than others.
"
The few markets opened are tiny compared to the number and value of jobs lost - which I've seen estimated at between 200,000 and 1 million."
China and India happen to have the two largest populations in the world. You think those are small markets? And the vast majority of those jobs were lost because the dot-com economy fell apart.
Come back when you have half a clue about how the economy works, as opposed. Maybe I'll listen to your opinion of how the "real world" works then.
First of all, labor laws such as minimum wage do not apply to exempt employees such as software engineers. A decent knowledge of your country's labor laws is a must for anyone in the workplace, I can only hope you are just still in school.
Second, what if other countries did the same thing? What if Europian countries forced other nations to comply with their values? There is a reason countries like France and Germany have double digit unemployment rates, they have very liberal laws. If we were required to comply with them, production here would fall and umemployment would skyrocket. Using your logic, should Silicon Valley prohibit goods made where the cost of living is lower (such as the south east US) from being sold there?
In the real world, offshoring has saved American jobs, not taken them. It has opened up huge markets to American companies, and many companies in trouble were able to just offshore a few positions rather than go bankrupt and fire everyone. But America, with its relatively strong economy, has a huge demand for information technology and thus there will be a huge demand for IT employees here (just maybe not as big as in the late 90's but that had nothing to do with India or China). And as the Indian and Chinese economies grow, so will their costs of living and thus so will their salaries.
Slashdot Mirror
Anyways, all you are saying is that it is a more accurate test. Why should that make it worse?
Yes they should. When has a federal court ever upheld a request from the federal goverment to block DNA evidence from the defense?
Oh yeah, genetics is a scary new technology whose very mention raises irrational fears.
Sure, this database could be used to intrude on someone's medical conditions. But then again, if some agent of the federal government were inclined to violate the rules governing the use of the database, what would be stopping him from following you around and collecting a sample of your saliva from a soda can or blood from a bandage? Unless you are like the guy from Gattaca and make sure you clean everything you touch...
In reality all four of those are false. What, do Canadian schools not require their students to take history classes? Down here we studied all this in middle school and again in high school.
Sure, if you use ad blocking software in your browser.
" A yahoo "is a crude or brutish person". Lesson: Don't trust programmers to name a company. Programmers will invent a name that sounds to them like a great intelligent joke, but causes problems later. How many people who aren't computer professionals know that the joke is "Yet Another Hierarchically Ordered Oracle"? "
How many people total associate the word "Yahoo" with the definition you quoted? To most people it is just an exclamation, and even to those who know the other meaning generally associate it with the exclamation.
Despite these "PR blunders", Yahoo isn't doing all that bad compared to Google.
Hitler killed himself, dumbass. Looks like watching Jon Stewart hasn't resulted in you keeping up with current or historical events.
You know, the reason most people bring up public airways is because of a general feeling that since they are essentially controlled by the FCC, they should be entirely unbiased. But you apparently consider the public airways special because of their popularity, and now that cable is also popular you feel people with whom you disagree should be banned from it as well. So if someone's blog becomes too popular do you think they should be banned from the Internet? What, did you read 1984 and thought it was an educational piece?
I can only pray the rest of your countrymen have a better respect for the rights of the press than you.
Neither O'Reilly nor Stewart are on the public airwaves, genius. They are both on cable.
And using the phrase "government shrills" to describe those you disagree with doesn't change a thing. You are still advocating censorship. Sorry, but you are twice the enemy of the free press than O'Reilly ever was.
BTW, do you know where I first heard the name "Bill O'Reilly"? On your hero's show, The Daily Show, he interviewed him a few times.
Are you Rupert Murdoch? No? Well then you can't tell him who he hires to be on his cable news channel.
"Fox News would never broadcast something that speaks against Bush and if you don't realize that's what makes the difference in this case, then you've lost sight of the goal of a free press."
Yeah, because people like Alan Colmes and Neal Gabler would never speak against Bush.
"You'd actually advocate giving racists, liars, and government shills who've been caught lying multiple times, air time?"
No. But if someone were willing to give them air time I'd defend their right to use it against people like you demanding their banishment. Thats called freedom of speech. Ever hear the saying "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend your right to say it"? Obviously not.
"As soon as Bush is out of power and media organizations don't feel as threatened, they'll start reporting the truths they've been holding back from the public and you'll be crying out to suppress the truth."
Well I'm sure your tin foil hat will give you good protection until that day.
Considering what you seem to think "free press" means (only people you agree with can get on TV, and anyone who speaks against that is banned for life), I'm sure Jon Stewart would be offended by that.
You mean like how you think the Daily Show is news? Most people understand that he is airing opinions not news, even if you don't, much like a columnist writing for a newspaper. Or do you think the editorial pages should be moved because "people might get confused"?
BTW, that thing you are advocating, telling people when and where they can and cannot speak, it has a name. Its called "censorship", and most supporters of the free press don't care for it that much.
BTW, it truly is sad that when its time for you to come up with the name of a journalist, the best you can do is Jon Stewart. He hosts a parody news show on Comedy Central, not a real one.
Something about that doesn't quite add up, I just can't put my finger on it...
Its like there is some contradiction in there, some blatant example of hypocrisy...
Oh well, its late, maybe I'll get it in the morning.
But Mercury's proximity to the sun makes it get to be around 14.5 times warmer than Pluto (using the link you just gave: 725 K vs 50 K).
So yes, I would say the sun has the most important impact on temperature.
No they didn't. They knew it would hit in the Gulf around New Orleans, but it acutally hit well east of most estimates. And those came only days before, you are talking about predicting climate changes decades from now.
"The fact that glaciers all over the world are shrinking at an unheard of rate is absolute proof"
The fact that you haven't heard of such rates doesn't make them unheard of.
"Then there are plenty of pix of glaciers from 100 years ago, that clearly show they were much larger. Google a bit."
So your source is the results of an Internet search. Now thats science.
"In fact, the only ice that is growing is Antarctica which the models clearly showed would happen due to increased moisture in the air (it is still DAMN cold there)."
I love it when peoplt contradict themselves. Clearly glaciers all over the world are not shrinking if the (by a huge margin) largest source of glacier ice is increasing.
" The real issue is not Global Warming (which even your leader has now accepted as happening). The issues are 1. how is it occurring 2. are we a major or minor issue with it 3. How far will it go, if changes are not effected. 4. And what happens?"
In other words we don't know anything useful about it.
You mean prove the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth ones weren't flukes?
Compared to launching a giant rocket into space? Actually its very easy.
As for it falling on a town, the lower part would fall into the ocean, possibly burning up on the way down (depending on where it was cut). But the business end, with the counterweight and way station and all that, would suddenly have its center of gravity moved up above geostationary orbit, so it would fly out into space. Of course anyone on it at the time would want to get off, and you would lose a large investment, but it is unlikely it would be the catastrophe you imagine.
The point isn't that we should drop the entire space program and work on the space elevator, but rather have the space elevator (rather than decade old rocket technology) be the cornerstone of ambitious projects like getting back to the moon.
Why? Whats the hurry? Would it really be the end of the world if we didn't get back to the Moon by 2020? Is this a critical mission whose failure would jeopardize national security?
No, its a 100 billion dollar PR stunt. The best argument you can make for it is that in the process we are developing new technologies and discovering new ideas, but in that case wouldn't it make more sense to go with the new untested but potentially revolutionary technology than what is effectively the same thing we used 36 years ago? Doesn't going with what you know works completely defeat the point?
Looking at Best Buy, more than a few (although that of course is not before mp3 players, but portable radios are not exactly a new technology so I doubt it was that different a few years ago). And I do remember my old walkman had a radio that I used all the time, so it is not a new concept.
But so what? My point was that there was a very small market for mp3 players before the iPod but Apple was able to build one around their product. Why can't they do the same thing for a video player?
Out of curiosity, how many people were buying CDs back then? I was too young through most of the 80's to know, but I do seem to remember cassette tapes being the medium of choice. CDs just looked like tiny laser-discs to us.
Of course some things like a mp3 player and a radio make sense together. Apple's claim that there hasn't been much of a market for such devices is strange considering what the market was for mp3 players before the iPod. And if I can get a combo video player/radio/voice recorder/photo viewer/mp3 player (which sounds better) for the same price as a pretty iPod, I'll go with the functionality over the fad. But thats just me.
Thats funny, I don't remember saying that no labor laws applied to exempt employees, only laws like minimum wage. Oh no, thats right, that exactly what I said, jackass.
"Of course, you're incorrect about German unemployment anyway - according to the German Federal Foreign Office [tatsachen-...schland.de] website, unemployment is currently at 9.8%, and at 7.6% if you only look at the former West Germany. High, but not double digit. France is barely in double digits at 10.1%, according to the CIA World Factbook."
You know, it takes a special kind of stupidity to post a link to an article containing 2002 numbers and claim that is the current situation. As recently as last March Germany's unemployment rate was well over 12%. Maybe it has dramatically fallen by a few points recently (I don't follow the day to day status of European economies), but it is still unbelievably high. And are you trying to claim that stating a 10% unemployment rate is double digits is exaggerating the situation?
And obviously I wasn't talking about only West Germany. Of course some regions are going to have lower unemployment rates than others.
" The few markets opened are tiny compared to the number and value of jobs lost - which I've seen estimated at between 200,000 and 1 million."
China and India happen to have the two largest populations in the world. You think those are small markets? And the vast majority of those jobs were lost because the dot-com economy fell apart.
Come back when you have half a clue about how the economy works, as opposed. Maybe I'll listen to your opinion of how the "real world" works then.
Second, what if other countries did the same thing? What if Europian countries forced other nations to comply with their values? There is a reason countries like France and Germany have double digit unemployment rates, they have very liberal laws. If we were required to comply with them, production here would fall and umemployment would skyrocket. Using your logic, should Silicon Valley prohibit goods made where the cost of living is lower (such as the south east US) from being sold there?
In the real world, offshoring has saved American jobs, not taken them. It has opened up huge markets to American companies, and many companies in trouble were able to just offshore a few positions rather than go bankrupt and fire everyone. But America, with its relatively strong economy, has a huge demand for information technology and thus there will be a huge demand for IT employees here (just maybe not as big as in the late 90's but that had nothing to do with India or China). And as the Indian and Chinese economies grow, so will their costs of living and thus so will their salaries.