You are making a slight change to the argument though. You seem to be saying that if one applicant has better qualifications than another, bring him over and give him the job. He'll do wonderful things and stimulate our economy, etc.
Parent was assuming that the two applicants have equal qualifications and therefore we should be hiring the local one in preference over the foreign one. This isn't a debate over whether we should hire outstanding foreign workers over mediocre Americans. This is a debate about hiring outstanding foreign workers over outstanding Americans because taxes are lower.
Yes, he was kidding, but not in the way you seem to be reading it. He's not trying to make a quip that there's only 12 or so lines in the document blacked out, so we are all overreacting. He was making a joke that in his own comment, we can read one line, while 12 are redacted. So we can read 1 out of 13 lines in his comment, i.e. 12/13, or 92%, of his comment is blacked out.
I'm all for believing random slashdot user's claims about their various degrees, and I'm not usually a grammar Nazi. The problem is when a person claims to have a bachelor's degree in theoretical physics in the sentence after, "Hear is an anecdotal news flash." That sort of thing destroys all credibility I would have given your post.
Basic U.S. science education teaches that an electron is one of many parts that make up an atom. There are zero or more electroncs, plus protons and neutrons. Basic logic says that if one thing is inherently a part of something else, then the first thing must be smaller. You're thinking to hard to justify how 54% of Americans could get that question wrong. The sad truth is that 54% of Americans couldn't care less about basic education.
32% of scientists identify themselves as Independent, while 55% say they're Democrats and 6% say they're Republicans.
Selecting a party instead of a candidate seems rather unscientific to me. I've probably voted for more Democrats than Republicans in my life, but it seems to me that the scientific approach is to study the evidence and select a candidate based on his record, stated positions, etc.
Maybe a lot of scientists did actually study the evidence and selected candidates based on their record, stated positions, etc. These scientists then realized over time that the majority of the candidates they chose happened to be Democrats. Thus, they would label themselves as Democrats. Or another possibility is that these scientists, regardless of which candidate they choose for each post in each election, they generally support the Democrat's platform more then the Republican's platform, so once again, they would label themselves as Democrats. While what you are saying may very well be true, we don't know, based on this information, how the scientists vote, or why. All we know is how they label themselves.
How is this a troll? Parent was not rude or stating anything offensive, he simply gave an opinion, based on personal experience, which contradicts an assumption made in the summary. How many times do we have to explain that the "Troll" moderation does NOT mean "I disagree!" Someone needs to L2Moderate.
I think the key point about these types of programs is the assumptions that they can change the information on the screen faster than humans can read. Given Window's amazing reliability to jerk and spasm around, I wouldn't put too much stock in that assumption. This would become a very annoying program pretty quickly. Even very minor delays in the program would cause headaches (literally and figuratively) for the reader.
It is great that they are finally going to make decent games for the wii, but Dead Space: Extraction? Really? I don't want a sequel to a game that only came out on the other consoles.
How do you discover new things through Facebook when it effectivly blanks out any information provided by anyone not in your "network"?
I think you are using a different interpretation of the word "new" than the GP. He is using the word to mean "new to me". So something can be known about by his friends, but it is new to him, so he learns about it. It looks like you are using the word to mean "brand spanking new" so that you and all of your friends would be clueless aobut it. Both points are valid.
That is one of my major complaints about Facebook. How am I supposed to know if I want to be "friends" with someone if their profile is hidden from me? And I can't view their profile unless I am friends with them.
The whole thing seems like a dick waving exercise for people who have a lot of IRL acquaintances (not necessarily people they are actually friends with). Seemingly the only way to become "friends" with someone on Facebook is to know them already.
That is precisely why I use Facebook instead of Myspace. People are almost required to have an IRL connection to the people on their friends list. This makes it a lot more likely that they know the individual personally, so it really is a "network" and not random people who like to have friends online. This also improves the likelihood that the person is a REAL PERSON, not a spam page. This is opposed to Myspace where people have 7000 friends that they never spoke to (the real dick waving exercise), and you have no idea who is really thier friend, or even if they are real people.
GP is saying that when you sell coins for more than the face value, you get taxed on what you sold them for. GP did not say they actually paid that tax, which is where the tax invasion part comes in. When GP says "which is what the people in this article did." He's saying they sold the coins for more than face value. He wasn't trying to say that they actually paid the correct tax. He's trying to say the opposite.
Create some subhadronic matter and see if it causes a region of space with lower pressure than the surrounding space. As a bonus, measure the temperature of that space before and after the pressure vacuum stabilizes.
No one said all the inidenous peoples of Africa were genetically and culturally homogeneous. That has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that all of those people live on the continent called Africa. Let's call an apple an apple people. Why do I say that? Because there are many types of apples too. But we have this idea of groups and subgroups. Recognizing that something is part of the larger group doesn't mean that it is exactly the same as all the others. Saying a poodle is a dog doesn't mean it is exactly the same as a boxer. Yet they are both dogs. Just as South Africans and Egyptians are all African.
I think we are all confusing two (or maybe more) different questions. Sure, if you ask various people what country they were from, or what their nationality was, they would say Spain, France, etc. But what would happen if that same Spaniard were visiting America and I asked him "Hey, are you European?" I guarantee you quite a few would say yes. I can say this with a somewhat high degree of certainty because of two reasons. First of all, if someone asks me where I'm from, I'll say Texas, but if someone asked if I was American, or from North America, then I would say yes. See, it is possible to be part of two political structures. A smaller one and a larger one. One of them you may confirm only if asked specifically, and the other you volunteer, because that's what you are proud of. Second, while I was in the Army, in Afghanistan, soldiers from all over the world would pass through. Many of them would have uniforms and flags that I didn't recognize, so instead of possibly insulting someone from Portugal by asking if he was from Spain, I would ask if he was from Europe. They would just say yes, in whatever accent they had. I would then probably continue the conversation with "Oh, what country are you from?" and he would tell me. But they never denied being European, and they most certainly never got all huffy puffy about it.
1) I didn't say to write technical mumbo-jumbo in to the constitution, like "freedom of speech is guaranteed for people who use the interwebs." I'm saying you would put in something like "freedom of speech is guaranteed despite the medium in which that speech occurs." This ensures that future generations are forced to understand that freedom of speech is a freedom in all mediums, whether that medium was invented in 1500, 2000, or 2500.
2)If a new medium is invented, it will fit in with my answer to #1. And since I didn't actually list the medium or technologies, then your list argument fails. Finally, I still don't see why we can't have both generalizations and explicitness in the same document. English is a very versatile language, and using the example above, it is possible to say something like "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech regardless of the medium or technology used." Of course there would be some people who would try to say that this is an exhaustive list so of course congress can abridge freedom of speech in other ways." This, of course, is a ridiculous argument.
It was never about the paper it was about the words on the paper. All of this unreasonable search and seizure is based on protecting your words and belongings, why we continue debate this based on the medium is beyond me.
Because in the real world, there will always be people that try to defend the spirit of the constitution, while others will argue a strict "letter of the law" approach. A lot of times, these two approaches are irreconcilable. It doesn't help that those people switch sides depending on which part of the constitution is being debated. All I've been trying to say is that if the letter of the law happens to be written pretty explicitly, so that the spirit of the law is understood by everyone, then the debate is quashed before it even begins.
And you are missing what I am saying too. Of course the constitution is just words on paper, and you need people in government who will abide by the spirit of the document, and even fight for it. But it is also a lot easier for these constitutional protectors to do their jobs if they can say "look, it says RIGHT HERE that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed." The fight to keep that right has been raging for years, and if it wasn't for the fact that it is spelled out so clearly, it would have been taken away a long time ago. In fact, the only real argument for limiting that amendment's scope has been the undying question of how important the "militia" part is. If a sentence is vague and open to many interpretations, then even if you have people fighting tooth and nail to preserve the intent of that sentence, they could still lose the battle because some judge thinks they know better than the constitution.
Negative. When I use the word "activist" I use the actual dictionary definition, not some made up phrase that tries to discount someone's argument. Nice try though.
Activism is defined on dictionary.com as " the doctrine or practice of vigorous action or involvement as a means of achieving political or other goals, sometimes by demonstrations, protests, etc." and on wikipedia as "intentional action to bring about social change.."
Those are the definitions I use, thanks.
You then give examples of how activist judges basically granted blacks and gays as anyone else and later you bring up the presidential ballot counting. I'm not sure if you are trying to say you are for or against activism on the bench, but I think all these examples prove my point. Imagine how different things would have turned out if the constitution explicitly stated that humans of all races, genders, or sexual orientations were to be treated equally. It is a lot harder to trample on rights if they are explicit. That's all I'm saying.
I don't hear the word "originalist" being used EVER but I know what you are saying, and I completely agree.
Slashdot Mirror
You are making a slight change to the argument though. You seem to be saying that if one applicant has better qualifications than another, bring him over and give him the job. He'll do wonderful things and stimulate our economy, etc. Parent was assuming that the two applicants have equal qualifications and therefore we should be hiring the local one in preference over the foreign one. This isn't a debate over whether we should hire outstanding foreign workers over mediocre Americans. This is a debate about hiring outstanding foreign workers over outstanding Americans because taxes are lower.
Yes, he was kidding, but not in the way you seem to be reading it. He's not trying to make a quip that there's only 12 or so lines in the document blacked out, so we are all overreacting. He was making a joke that in his own comment, we can read one line, while 12 are redacted. So we can read 1 out of 13 lines in his comment, i.e. 12/13, or 92%, of his comment is blacked out.
Because every game I've ever bought that had PunkBuster included gave me the OPTION of installing it.
Unless you are using VHDL as a tool to help you learn Karnaugh maps and state machines, as we did in college.
I'm all for believing random slashdot user's claims about their various degrees, and I'm not usually a grammar Nazi. The problem is when a person claims to have a bachelor's degree in theoretical physics in the sentence after, "Hear is an anecdotal news flash." That sort of thing destroys all credibility I would have given your post.
There are zero or more electroncs, plus protons and neutrons.
. . . in an atom. My bad.
Basic U.S. science education teaches that an electron is one of many parts that make up an atom. There are zero or more electroncs, plus protons and neutrons. Basic logic says that if one thing is inherently a part of something else, then the first thing must be smaller. You're thinking to hard to justify how 54% of Americans could get that question wrong. The sad truth is that 54% of Americans couldn't care less about basic education.
32% of scientists identify themselves as Independent, while 55% say they're Democrats and 6% say they're Republicans.
Selecting a party instead of a candidate seems rather unscientific to me. I've probably voted for more Democrats than Republicans in my life, but it seems to me that the scientific approach is to study the evidence and select a candidate based on his record, stated positions, etc.
Maybe a lot of scientists did actually study the evidence and selected candidates based on their record, stated positions, etc. These scientists then realized over time that the majority of the candidates they chose happened to be Democrats. Thus, they would label themselves as Democrats. Or another possibility is that these scientists, regardless of which candidate they choose for each post in each election, they generally support the Democrat's platform more then the Republican's platform, so once again, they would label themselves as Democrats. While what you are saying may very well be true, we don't know, based on this information, how the scientists vote, or why. All we know is how they label themselves.
How is this a troll? Parent was not rude or stating anything offensive, he simply gave an opinion, based on personal experience, which contradicts an assumption made in the summary. How many times do we have to explain that the "Troll" moderation does NOT mean "I disagree!" Someone needs to L2Moderate.
I think the key point about these types of programs is the assumptions that they can change the information on the screen faster than humans can read. Given Window's amazing reliability to jerk and spasm around, I wouldn't put too much stock in that assumption. This would become a very annoying program pretty quickly. Even very minor delays in the program would cause headaches (literally and figuratively) for the reader.
Just goes to show, one man's big is another man's feature.
On a 256kbps link, the upload speed is probably half that.
It is great that they are finally going to make decent games for the wii, but Dead Space: Extraction? Really? I don't want a sequel to a game that only came out on the other consoles.
How do you discover new things through Facebook when it effectivly blanks out any information provided by anyone not in your "network"?
I think you are using a different interpretation of the word "new" than the GP. He is using the word to mean "new to me". So something can be known about by his friends, but it is new to him, so he learns about it. It looks like you are using the word to mean "brand spanking new" so that you and all of your friends would be clueless aobut it. Both points are valid.
That is one of my major complaints about Facebook. How am I supposed to know if I want to be "friends" with someone if their profile is hidden from me? And I can't view their profile unless I am friends with them.
The whole thing seems like a dick waving exercise for people who have a lot of IRL acquaintances (not necessarily people they are actually friends with). Seemingly the only way to become "friends" with someone on Facebook is to know them already.
That is precisely why I use Facebook instead of Myspace. People are almost required to have an IRL connection to the people on their friends list. This makes it a lot more likely that they know the individual personally, so it really is a "network" and not random people who like to have friends online. This also improves the likelihood that the person is a REAL PERSON, not a spam page. This is opposed to Myspace where people have 7000 friends that they never spoke to (the real dick waving exercise), and you have no idea who is really thier friend, or even if they are real people.
So you spent $750 plus every weekend from June until October. But did you win?
GP is saying that when you sell coins for more than the face value, you get taxed on what you sold them for. GP did not say they actually paid that tax, which is where the tax invasion part comes in. When GP says "which is what the people in this article did." He's saying they sold the coins for more than face value. He wasn't trying to say that they actually paid the correct tax. He's trying to say the opposite.
Create some subhadronic matter and see if it causes a region of space with lower pressure than the surrounding space. As a bonus, measure the temperature of that space before and after the pressure vacuum stabilizes.
No one said all the inidenous peoples of Africa were genetically and culturally homogeneous. That has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that all of those people live on the continent called Africa. Let's call an apple an apple people. Why do I say that? Because there are many types of apples too. But we have this idea of groups and subgroups. Recognizing that something is part of the larger group doesn't mean that it is exactly the same as all the others. Saying a poodle is a dog doesn't mean it is exactly the same as a boxer. Yet they are both dogs. Just as South Africans and Egyptians are all African.
I think we are all confusing two (or maybe more) different questions. Sure, if you ask various people what country they were from, or what their nationality was, they would say Spain, France, etc. But what would happen if that same Spaniard were visiting America and I asked him "Hey, are you European?" I guarantee you quite a few would say yes. I can say this with a somewhat high degree of certainty because of two reasons. First of all, if someone asks me where I'm from, I'll say Texas, but if someone asked if I was American, or from North America, then I would say yes. See, it is possible to be part of two political structures. A smaller one and a larger one. One of them you may confirm only if asked specifically, and the other you volunteer, because that's what you are proud of. Second, while I was in the Army, in Afghanistan, soldiers from all over the world would pass through. Many of them would have uniforms and flags that I didn't recognize, so instead of possibly insulting someone from Portugal by asking if he was from Spain, I would ask if he was from Europe. They would just say yes, in whatever accent they had. I would then probably continue the conversation with "Oh, what country are you from?" and he would tell me. But they never denied being European, and they most certainly never got all huffy puffy about it.
1) I didn't say to write technical mumbo-jumbo in to the constitution, like "freedom of speech is guaranteed for people who use the interwebs." I'm saying you would put in something like "freedom of speech is guaranteed despite the medium in which that speech occurs." This ensures that future generations are forced to understand that freedom of speech is a freedom in all mediums, whether that medium was invented in 1500, 2000, or 2500. 2)If a new medium is invented, it will fit in with my answer to #1. And since I didn't actually list the medium or technologies, then your list argument fails. Finally, I still don't see why we can't have both generalizations and explicitness in the same document. English is a very versatile language, and using the example above, it is possible to say something like "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech regardless of the medium or technology used." Of course there would be some people who would try to say that this is an exhaustive list so of course congress can abridge freedom of speech in other ways." This, of course, is a ridiculous argument.
It was never about the paper it was about the words on the paper. All of this unreasonable search and seizure is based on protecting your words and belongings, why we continue debate this based on the medium is beyond me.
Because in the real world, there will always be people that try to defend the spirit of the constitution, while others will argue a strict "letter of the law" approach. A lot of times, these two approaches are irreconcilable. It doesn't help that those people switch sides depending on which part of the constitution is being debated. All I've been trying to say is that if the letter of the law happens to be written pretty explicitly, so that the spirit of the law is understood by everyone, then the debate is quashed before it even begins.
And I contend that the reason for this is because all three systems rely so heavily on judicial interpretation.
And you are missing what I am saying too. Of course the constitution is just words on paper, and you need people in government who will abide by the spirit of the document, and even fight for it. But it is also a lot easier for these constitutional protectors to do their jobs if they can say "look, it says RIGHT HERE that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed." The fight to keep that right has been raging for years, and if it wasn't for the fact that it is spelled out so clearly, it would have been taken away a long time ago. In fact, the only real argument for limiting that amendment's scope has been the undying question of how important the "militia" part is. If a sentence is vague and open to many interpretations, then even if you have people fighting tooth and nail to preserve the intent of that sentence, they could still lose the battle because some judge thinks they know better than the constitution.
P.S. I have no idea what I did to make it format like that. Sorry /. readers.
Negative. When I use the word "activist" I use the actual dictionary definition, not some made up phrase that tries to discount someone's argument. Nice try though. Activism is defined on dictionary.com as " the doctrine or practice of vigorous action or involvement as a means of achieving political or other goals, sometimes by demonstrations, protests, etc." and on wikipedia as "intentional action to bring about social change.." Those are the definitions I use, thanks. You then give examples of how activist judges basically granted blacks and gays as anyone else and later you bring up the presidential ballot counting. I'm not sure if you are trying to say you are for or against activism on the bench, but I think all these examples prove my point. Imagine how different things would have turned out if the constitution explicitly stated that humans of all races, genders, or sexual orientations were to be treated equally. It is a lot harder to trample on rights if they are explicit. That's all I'm saying. I don't hear the word "originalist" being used EVER but I know what you are saying, and I completely agree.