I think they are raising taxes on the oil and gas companies and not directly the oil and gas that consumers purchase.
So how do you do one without also doing the other? Or to put it another way: if you raise the taxes of all oil/gas companies, what do you think those companies are going to do next?
I don't know what school you went to but it should be nuked from orbit and your parents need to be dope slapped, twice, just to make sure.
Lets seem 7 percent versus 2 percent....
Well golly, that's darn close to 5 percent.
Or in your math. a rounding error.
Really?
Comparing the current tax rate to the proposed tax increase is not a "rounding error" at all. It's five percent, just as you say.
Comparing the additional cost of this proposed tax increase to all the other costs involved in obtaining the fuels is what has been identified as a rounding error.
So, while what you say is correct, you're missing the point entirely. This is why context is more important than trying to show everyone how clever you are for finding the obvious "flaw" everyone else "missed". It would be wonderful to see a single Slashdot discussion where your mistake isn't repeated.
That's a useless statement of the obvious until and unless you provide another definition of "fair" that you believe better applies to society. The AC at least provided a line of reasoning.
Personally I'd like to see the IRS eliminated and the Fair Tax Act implemented. The funny thing about that Act: I've never seen someone rail against it who actually understood how it works. Of course total ignorance about its most basic details didn't seem to stop such people from passionately demonizing it. Gotta love that. One could say that a notion of "fairness" includes not opposing something you aren't even slightly familiar with.
Perhaps the language from "across the pond" is hard for some US readers to parse. "Exploitation" meaning "use effectively"...
Because as we all know, no one would ever use the fact that a word has multiple meanings to make a humorous statement. They can't possibly have done this intentionally, with full awareness of the intended meaning of the word versus the different meaning they are using in their humorous statement.
Thank God that never happens! Therefore you have done a tremendous and necessary public service by pointing this out. All of us would truly be lost without your guidance. You are to be commended, sir.
Between the repetitive memes and endless XKCD links ("obligatory" implies "redundant") on one end, and people who feel a need to spell out the obvious because they think they're so much clever than everyone else on the other (so it doesn't occur to them they might be interpreting it incorrectly), humor on Slashdot is on the decline.
Yes because everyone is completely interested in your little quarrel and regards this matter as extremely important and compelling.
I get it, I really do. For most Slashdotters, it's standard procedure to disappear and stop posting to a thread the moment someone conclusively proves them wrong or otherwise calls them out. Heaven forbid someone say a thing like, "you know, that's a really good point and my position is mistaken - I should correct my worldview to accommodate this new information." That requires a certain character and emotional maturity that few possess anymore because the culture at large no longer values these traits. The childish desire to always look good, to save face at all costs has no room for these, you see.
The problem is: if you are in the right, no number of posts you create is ever going to make someone perform the growth and introspection it takes to correct their value system. They'll just find lower-hanging fruit, easier slam-dunk cheap-shot targets, and move on. If you are in the wrong, then you're simply lowering the signal-to-noise ratio with nothing to show for it. Either way, you cannot accomplish anything. The very secrets of the Universe Itself are lost upon those who only value dick jokes.
Meanwhile you're creating lots of irrelevant and off-topic posts that others quickly grow tired of seeing. Even the few who may have been sympathetic to your side will quickly become turned off, and if nothing else, they will lose their desire to be associated with a perceived spammer.
I'm sorry but what you are trying to do here simply can't work and it's not a matter of trying hard enough. Please reconsider your tactics. If you are correct about this person (and I have neither the information nor the interest to judge that), you demonstrate your superiority by being more correct, more classy, and more tasteful than he or she. The belief that only K. S. Kyosuke could ever have posted a complaint is a tad paranoid; therefore I make this post with my pseudonym.
do you support racism? Hmm, xOra? Supporting white supremacist garbage in 2014 with some pointy-headed legalism that ignores human suffering, human rights and the need for human dignity is pretty odious. I think your employer would like to know about it.
The antidote for bad speech is more (good) speech.
You simply can't have freedom if people aren't allowed to decide for themselves what is worthy and what is disgusting. And in terms of free speech, it's worked out pretty well. Those who seriously express racist sentiments are publically humiliated and villified in our society. In fact I'd rather they be free to speak so that they can be identified and avoided, rather than driving it underground (like our futile efforts to proscribe drugs).
To frame this in terms of "supporting free speech is also supporting racism (because racists might speak too)!" is really very childish of you. If and when your intellect and emotions finally mature and match your chronological age, you will come to understand this for yourself.
No, but pornography is a first amendment rights, and screw you if it is at the opposite of your morality.
I'm not commenting on porn one way or another. But if something that consenting adults do happens to go against my morality, do you know how I deal with that?
I don't do that thing myself. That's all.
You see, part of my morality involves recognizing the unnecessary control of other people as evil. Consenting adults == no victim == no crime == not a law-enforcement matter. I might speak against practices I disagree with, perhaps even vehemently, but in these cases trying to use government's police power (that is, armed men willing to do violence to force compliance) is just plain fucking disgusting.
It matters in the sense that the "young-earth creationists" are easily ridiculed and the mountain of evidence against them is strong.
It matters because it's easy, in the soft minds of so many, to represent all creationists as young-earth creationists who believe things that are easily and trivially falsified by geological, astronomical, and nuclear-physics data. So precious few people are willing to do a little reading and learn that in the hundred years prior to the 1960s almost all creationists were ancient-earth creationists, that a handful of charismatic, vocal, wrong religious people are the only reason we even know of such a thing as a young-earth creationist (oh and the idea of a pre-flood canopy of water vapor is frickin impossible as well, and not even Biblical).
If you have ever actually met and talked to a number of atheists, they tend to have a lot of anger and resentment towards established religion and the more nutty followers of it. Some of them even have victim/persecution complexes. They tend to paint with a very broad brush and deny entirely that reasonable spiritual people exist. That would, after all, get in the way of their resentment. I don't believe I have ever met a pro-atheism atheist, but I have met a lot of anti-fundamentalist atheists. The common trait most of them have is that they cannot disagree with something without also trying to destroy it, which could be a lot more effective if they made any attempt to understand why those beliefs arose in the first place.
All of this is readily understood by those who simply want to objectively understand the beliefs in question, both scientific and religious. It tends to be lost upon those whose primary concern is winning converts.
Fact: Polycarbonate is made using bisphenol. BPS leeches much more than BPA. BPA-Free polycarbonate uses BPS, so banning BPA will expose us to greater toxins. Enjoy your toxic non-BPA baby bottles.
Actually as I said in another post in this same discussion, my preference is for stainless steel containers. No plastic -> no need for plastic softeners -> no exposure to BPA or any other chemical serving its purpose.
But many people here do feel a need to show everyone how clever they are and how dumb everyone else is, even if they have to make baseless assumptions to try it, don't they?
You know if you take the position that people who can't do what you can must therefore be useless and lame, then that means the only things that you can do just barely require mediocrity.
The thing is, anyone who can read and follow instructions can install an under-sink water filter. It's not fucking rocket surgery. The only people who can't do it are people who have been convinced that they can't do it, or people with no arms. Even some of them could probably manage it, but I'll go ahead and accept that they are probably in the minority.
I still try to do what you are doing here, in the hope that it might make some kind of difference, and because it's the fucking truth that needs to be said... but you will find (and probably have found) that people will cling dearly to their victimhood and closely embrace their conditioned helplessness as though it were precious to them.
Expecting a literate adult with no disabilities to be able to follow simple, clearly written instructions is some kind of heresy in our society. In the context of things like computer security, you will be accused of blaming the victim when you tell them there are ways they can stop being exploited. In the context of tasks like installing a filter or configuring a system, you'll be told that "not everyone is an expert" and treated like you are making unreasonable demands.
People just love to limit themselves and avoid learning new things. The society in general has become childish and self-centered to its core, and such people have one primary concern: avoiding blame. If you are a helpless victim then you can't assume responsibility for your life, your decisions, and your problems. If you are a helpless victim then nothing could ever be your fault. That's the appeal. Just as a cell infected by a virus never "intended" to become a virus factory, so also do these people believe their own bullshit. They fear the introspection and lack the objectivity to do otherwise.
Trying to convince them of the truth, that they CAN in fact do it, is tantamount to convincing them to accept responsibility for all the things they could have done differently. Over a lifetime the cumulative number of such things can be quite large. They have to get upset with you and invent faults with your truth because they're cowards who are not prepared to do that and don't even understand the value in it. If something is your fault, that's good! It means you can change it by making better decisions. It means you are not really so helpless. But again you have to be mentally and emotionally mature enough to value this more than avoiding blame.
While I use soap a bit more often than you indicate, I am right with you on the antibacterial soap.
I am not a doctor and this is definitely not medical advice. But If I were worried about bacteria I personally (deciding only for myself) would take a probiotic. About 70% of the immune system is in the gut.
BPA is harmless. It's toxic at levels far above normal intake and concentration in the blood. BPA-Free polycarbonate now uses BPS, which is exactly as toxic as BPA but leaches at a rate 20 times that of BPA. It breaks the toxicity barrier with gusto, so enjoy your new toxic world.
Water bottles are most often PET or LDPE. These plastics aren't made with BPA or any analog.
It's not just humans. You may find this interesting to read, as well as this. Male fish are definitely not supposed to have female characteristics.
As far as humans are concerned, you may find this an interesting read. It indicates that humans may be more susceptible to such endocrine disruptors (like BPA) than previous studied using rodents initially indicated.
So then we're back to what constitutes good decision-making. Fact: I have no overriding reason why I absolutely must use containers made with BPA. Fact: not only are alternatives to such containers readily available, I also happen to like them better for aesthetic and durability reasons. Conclusion: exposing myself to BPA is an unnecessary risk.
Still, if you think it's harmless you are free to continue using it. At one time people were told (by doctors no less) that cigarettes were beneficial. Now if I had some dire need (as in my life and well-being absolutely depended on it) to use BPA-containing plastics, perhaps I'd take my chances. But I don't.
refilling plastic bottles in public places spreads diseases. our work place had 4 water coolers on each floor and they had to be regularly sanitized because people were getting ill from refilling their bottles
Not to mention the long-term effects of BPA exposure. If you don't know about this, I'd recommend researching it.
Besides, I think stainless steel just looks better and I know I'm not going to break it. When you have and regularly use an electric kettle anyway, you can quickly sanitize a steel container too.
Wow. just took a look at both sites, as I am always in the hunt for new sites.. 10 comments on a story was one of the more active ones.
Not really a big crowd over there yet...
Most of the time you must choose between quality and quantity.
Having both has been known to occur... for a little while... but it's very rare.
No, I got the joke, I just didn't consider it very good.
Slashdot is odd. Most other places, jokes are considered good if they are clever, unexpected, witty, amusing, and most of all, ORIGINAL (around here, most jokes like that will offend someone's sacred cow and get modded as -1 Troll).
Here, jokes are most likely to be enjoyed, encountered, and/or modded up to +5 Funny if they are repetitive, predictable, expected, tiresome memes.
This pattern is so consistent and observable that I think a conclusion about it can be made: slashdot is filled with insecure (and perceived or real) outcasts who have a certain desperation to feel like they fit into a culture of likeminded people. If you view it that way, suddenly the irrational celebration of the ten millionth "sharks with lasers on their heads" joke makes sense. If you view it that way, the hostility they often show when you reject or even question their brand of humor also makes sense.
It's sort of like when you were in high school and the more "average" people suddenly adopted the mannerisms, gestures, and speech patterns of the latest big movie or TV show, all the time pretending that they have always expressed themselves that way. The terror of being an individual! No meme is too repetitive, no joke too lame if it offers even a phony escape from that!
I'll add, most of these controversies purportedly about "science" are really controversies about "the status quo that cherrypicks bits of science to lend itself credibility". Powerful men have defined reality for the proles long before they had any sort of science by which to claim legitimacy. "Scientific data proves it (and only an idiot would question THAT)" can be used (abused by dishonest people) in a manner very similar to "God told me I should rule over you!" The purpose is the same: "don't argue with me, accept it as truth".
If you want to see that in action, look at why aspartame as a food additive was originally not allowed, then why the FDA director was pressured out of the agency, and who replaced him and what his primary goal was (which was of course approving aspartame). That's what money does to what was formerly good science.
It pisses me off to no end when people like you come along and start crying out that we shouldn't teach scientific consensus because "it might be wrong." Yeah, it might be fucking wrong. And there's a chance that 100,000 years of recorded history with the sun coming up in the east might be wrong - it's entirely possible that all those people were colluding in a grand conspiracy! Teach the controversy!
How do you read what he wrote and come up with that in response to it? Do you secretly believe everyone other than yourself is a moron?
It's like Slashdotters think it is weakness to try and understand what the other person believes and in what way it could be reasonable. It depends on the part where what the guy wrote must also be interpreted by the reader, and everything except rigorous mathematical formulae has multiple ways that it can be construed.
There actually are lots of problems with vaccines but you will never find this information without sincerely searching for it yourself, because there are too many monied interests who profit from a single view of the situation.
I think the KJV has some distinct advantages. For instance:
1. It's written in Shakespearian-era English, which has been proved to be about twenty percent cooler and over seventy percent more epic than modern english.
2. Some of the edits were—pardon the expression—simply divine. "I have become a brother to jackals"? Weak. "I am a brother to dragons"? Loving it. Somebody deserved a bonus for that gem.
It's not as well known as it deserves to be, but the early Christians were actually a very diverse group. What we now call Gnosticism was representative of many if not most of them.
Sadly it was systematically stamped out, largely in part because there is such great power in organized religion and adherence to its dogmas.
Excluded, "non-canonical" books like the Gospel of Thomas, the Book of Enoch, and the Gospel of Judas are really fascinating to read.
Not implying. There are a lot of willfully ignorant people that prefer their religion's tale of a 10,000 year old universe
That's both sad and amusing. Having read and learned about the Bible, I can tell you this much: the geneologies in Genesis and elsewhere are not complete and exhuastive. They do not claim to be complete and exhaustive. Nowhere in the Bible is it so much as implied that they are.
The standard ancient Hebrew practice of listing such geneologies is to list only the most famous/notable ancestors. More mediocre and lesser-known ancestors are left out deliberately because they were not considered worthy of mention. Thus there are large gaps of unknown time in the geneologies listed in Genesis and elsewhere. Nothing to the contrary is ever claimed. This fact is not even difficult to find out, except that it does depend on doing your own homework instead of letting the TV and the culture do the thinking for you. The main point of all the geneologies in the Bible is to establish that the line of King David was known (old testament) and is the same line from which Yeshua (new testament) is descended, which is important because various prophecies concerning the Messiah predicted this (e.g. Isaiah).
To infer some kind of final ultimate Age of Humanity or Age of The Earth from this is madness. The Bible never represents it as such, and anyone claiming it does is simply unfamiliar with the very book (and ancient Hebrew culture) they are claiming to understand. The Bible makes no claims whatsoever concerning things like how long ago Adam lived, how long ago Noah lived, how long ago the Flood was, etc.
Most self-described Christians don't know this and that's just plain fucking lazy, to be frank with you. You believe this is the WORD OF GOD and yet you can't be bothered to learn a few easily researched facts about it?? This is what happens when people always have some excuse for why they won't do their own thinking and their own learning.
If you are conducting the surveillance of me necessary to make that determination, then your surveillance is faulty. I merely gave an example scenario and I don't share this puerile urge to make everything into a personal matter. So I wrote in such a way that I made no claims about my own programming skill or lack thereof, in order to provide a hypothetical. What I wrote is equally true whether I've never seen a compiler before or whether I am an advanced expert.
The hostility you have makes you appear stupid because it prevents you from thinking of such things. After all, such things might make me seem reasonable and level-headed. That would be like giving aid and comfort to The Enemy, right?
That the old tired meme used to keep honest competent people out of critical jobs; but unlike generals and politicians, programmers able to work on OpenSSL don't grow up in trees, so you will have to make do with (almost) the same people and stuff your "incentives" and "reactions" up your ass.
At no point did I say that anyone should or shouldn't work on this project. Re-read it yourself if you doubt I know what I wrote. To paraphrase: what I said is that it's an unusually important project and therefore the work involves higher stakes. No one is really going to care very much if you screw up a free single-player solitaire game. If you screw up SSL, that can impact many other people in negative ways. By saying that I am hardly keeping competent people from their jobs, though it's flattering that you would ascribe to me such power.
This isn't difficult to acknowledge; at least, it certainly shouldn't be. Is there something about saying it that makes you so angry? Were you built up by praise you didn't really earn and are coming to realize how fragile a foundation that really is, or what (by means of my "platitudes")? Beware of hating someone for no good reason, someone who means well by you and wants good things for you. It's one of the more toxic ways you can pollute yourself.
Slashdot Mirror
I think they are raising taxes on the oil and gas companies and not directly the oil and gas that consumers purchase.
So how do you do one without also doing the other? Or to put it another way: if you raise the taxes of all oil/gas companies, what do you think those companies are going to do next?
I don't know what school you went to but it should be nuked from orbit and your parents need to be dope slapped, twice, just to make sure. Lets seem 7 percent versus 2 percent.... Well golly, that's darn close to 5 percent. Or in your math. a rounding error. Really?
Comparing the current tax rate to the proposed tax increase is not a "rounding error" at all. It's five percent, just as you say.
Comparing the additional cost of this proposed tax increase to all the other costs involved in obtaining the fuels is what has been identified as a rounding error.
So, while what you say is correct, you're missing the point entirely. This is why context is more important than trying to show everyone how clever you are for finding the obvious "flaw" everyone else "missed". It would be wonderful to see a single Slashdot discussion where your mistake isn't repeated.
Society is not a restaurant.
That's a useless statement of the obvious until and unless you provide another definition of "fair" that you believe better applies to society. The AC at least provided a line of reasoning.
Personally I'd like to see the IRS eliminated and the Fair Tax Act implemented. The funny thing about that Act: I've never seen someone rail against it who actually understood how it works. Of course total ignorance about its most basic details didn't seem to stop such people from passionately demonizing it. Gotta love that. One could say that a notion of "fairness" includes not opposing something you aren't even slightly familiar with.
I don't know, I find it kinda sad. Aren't users supposed to be smarter than the people manipulating them?
What did you observe that led you to that conclusion? And ... where can I go to make the same observations?
Perhaps the language from "across the pond" is hard for some US readers to parse. "Exploitation" meaning "use effectively" ...
Because as we all know, no one would ever use the fact that a word has multiple meanings to make a humorous statement. They can't possibly have done this intentionally, with full awareness of the intended meaning of the word versus the different meaning they are using in their humorous statement.
Thank God that never happens! Therefore you have done a tremendous and necessary public service by pointing this out. All of us would truly be lost without your guidance. You are to be commended, sir.
Between the repetitive memes and endless XKCD links ("obligatory" implies "redundant") on one end, and people who feel a need to spell out the obvious because they think they're so much clever than everyone else on the other (so it doesn't occur to them they might be interpreting it incorrectly), humor on Slashdot is on the decline.
So does a week long SendMail outage. Which one do you think is easier to get support for SendMail or Exchange?
I would never use Sendmail or BIND given their security history. Better tools are available.
Wrong side of history == people that do not agree with the Obama administration.
That's also a frequent definition of "racist".
K. S. Kyosuke posts ac to 'defend himself'? Please : Why're you running "forrest" http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
Yes because everyone is completely interested in your little quarrel and regards this matter as extremely important and compelling.
I get it, I really do. For most Slashdotters, it's standard procedure to disappear and stop posting to a thread the moment someone conclusively proves them wrong or otherwise calls them out. Heaven forbid someone say a thing like, "you know, that's a really good point and my position is mistaken - I should correct my worldview to accommodate this new information." That requires a certain character and emotional maturity that few possess anymore because the culture at large no longer values these traits. The childish desire to always look good, to save face at all costs has no room for these, you see.
The problem is: if you are in the right, no number of posts you create is ever going to make someone perform the growth and introspection it takes to correct their value system. They'll just find lower-hanging fruit, easier slam-dunk cheap-shot targets, and move on. If you are in the wrong, then you're simply lowering the signal-to-noise ratio with nothing to show for it. Either way, you cannot accomplish anything. The very secrets of the Universe Itself are lost upon those who only value dick jokes.
Meanwhile you're creating lots of irrelevant and off-topic posts that others quickly grow tired of seeing. Even the few who may have been sympathetic to your side will quickly become turned off, and if nothing else, they will lose their desire to be associated with a perceived spammer.
I'm sorry but what you are trying to do here simply can't work and it's not a matter of trying hard enough. Please reconsider your tactics. If you are correct about this person (and I have neither the information nor the interest to judge that), you demonstrate your superiority by being more correct, more classy, and more tasteful than he or she. The belief that only K. S. Kyosuke could ever have posted a complaint is a tad paranoid; therefore I make this post with my pseudonym.
do you support racism? Hmm, xOra? Supporting white supremacist garbage in 2014 with some pointy-headed legalism that ignores human suffering, human rights and the need for human dignity is pretty odious. I think your employer would like to know about it.
The antidote for bad speech is more (good) speech.
You simply can't have freedom if people aren't allowed to decide for themselves what is worthy and what is disgusting. And in terms of free speech, it's worked out pretty well. Those who seriously express racist sentiments are publically humiliated and villified in our society. In fact I'd rather they be free to speak so that they can be identified and avoided, rather than driving it underground (like our futile efforts to proscribe drugs).
To frame this in terms of "supporting free speech is also supporting racism (because racists might speak too)!" is really very childish of you. If and when your intellect and emotions finally mature and match your chronological age, you will come to understand this for yourself.
No, but pornography is a first amendment rights, and screw you if it is at the opposite of your morality.
I'm not commenting on porn one way or another. But if something that consenting adults do happens to go against my morality, do you know how I deal with that?
I don't do that thing myself. That's all.
You see, part of my morality involves recognizing the unnecessary control of other people as evil. Consenting adults == no victim == no crime == not a law-enforcement matter. I might speak against practices I disagree with, perhaps even vehemently, but in these cases trying to use government's police power (that is, armed men willing to do violence to force compliance) is just plain fucking disgusting.
It matters in the sense that the "young-earth creationists" are easily ridiculed and the mountain of evidence against them is strong.
It matters because it's easy, in the soft minds of so many, to represent all creationists as young-earth creationists who believe things that are easily and trivially falsified by geological, astronomical, and nuclear-physics data. So precious few people are willing to do a little reading and learn that in the hundred years prior to the 1960s almost all creationists were ancient-earth creationists, that a handful of charismatic, vocal, wrong religious people are the only reason we even know of such a thing as a young-earth creationist (oh and the idea of a pre-flood canopy of water vapor is frickin impossible as well, and not even Biblical).
If you have ever actually met and talked to a number of atheists, they tend to have a lot of anger and resentment towards established religion and the more nutty followers of it. Some of them even have victim/persecution complexes. They tend to paint with a very broad brush and deny entirely that reasonable spiritual people exist. That would, after all, get in the way of their resentment. I don't believe I have ever met a pro-atheism atheist, but I have met a lot of anti-fundamentalist atheists. The common trait most of them have is that they cannot disagree with something without also trying to destroy it, which could be a lot more effective if they made any attempt to understand why those beliefs arose in the first place.
All of this is readily understood by those who simply want to objectively understand the beliefs in question, both scientific and religious. It tends to be lost upon those whose primary concern is winning converts.
Fact: Polycarbonate is made using bisphenol. BPS leeches much more than BPA. BPA-Free polycarbonate uses BPS, so banning BPA will expose us to greater toxins. Enjoy your toxic non-BPA baby bottles.
Actually as I said in another post in this same discussion, my preference is for stainless steel containers. No plastic -> no need for plastic softeners -> no exposure to BPA or any other chemical serving its purpose.
But many people here do feel a need to show everyone how clever they are and how dumb everyone else is, even if they have to make baseless assumptions to try it, don't they?
You know if you take the position that people who can't do what you can must therefore be useless and lame, then that means the only things that you can do just barely require mediocrity.
The thing is, anyone who can read and follow instructions can install an under-sink water filter. It's not fucking rocket surgery. The only people who can't do it are people who have been convinced that they can't do it, or people with no arms. Even some of them could probably manage it, but I'll go ahead and accept that they are probably in the minority.
I still try to do what you are doing here, in the hope that it might make some kind of difference, and because it's the fucking truth that needs to be said ... but you will find (and probably have found) that people will cling dearly to their victimhood and closely embrace their conditioned helplessness as though it were precious to them.
Expecting a literate adult with no disabilities to be able to follow simple, clearly written instructions is some kind of heresy in our society. In the context of things like computer security, you will be accused of blaming the victim when you tell them there are ways they can stop being exploited. In the context of tasks like installing a filter or configuring a system, you'll be told that "not everyone is an expert" and treated like you are making unreasonable demands.
People just love to limit themselves and avoid learning new things. The society in general has become childish and self-centered to its core, and such people have one primary concern: avoiding blame. If you are a helpless victim then you can't assume responsibility for your life, your decisions, and your problems. If you are a helpless victim then nothing could ever be your fault. That's the appeal. Just as a cell infected by a virus never "intended" to become a virus factory, so also do these people believe their own bullshit. They fear the introspection and lack the objectivity to do otherwise.
Trying to convince them of the truth, that they CAN in fact do it, is tantamount to convincing them to accept responsibility for all the things they could have done differently. Over a lifetime the cumulative number of such things can be quite large. They have to get upset with you and invent faults with your truth because they're cowards who are not prepared to do that and don't even understand the value in it. If something is your fault, that's good! It means you can change it by making better decisions. It means you are not really so helpless. But again you have to be mentally and emotionally mature enough to value this more than avoiding blame.
While I use soap a bit more often than you indicate, I am right with you on the antibacterial soap.
I am not a doctor and this is definitely not medical advice. But If I were worried about bacteria I personally (deciding only for myself) would take a probiotic. About 70% of the immune system is in the gut.
BPA is harmless. It's toxic at levels far above normal intake and concentration in the blood. BPA-Free polycarbonate now uses BPS, which is exactly as toxic as BPA but leaches at a rate 20 times that of BPA. It breaks the toxicity barrier with gusto, so enjoy your new toxic world.
Water bottles are most often PET or LDPE. These plastics aren't made with BPA or any analog.
It's not just humans. You may find this interesting to read, as well as this. Male fish are definitely not supposed to have female characteristics.
As far as humans are concerned, you may find this an interesting read. It indicates that humans may be more susceptible to such endocrine disruptors (like BPA) than previous studied using rodents initially indicated.
So then we're back to what constitutes good decision-making. Fact: I have no overriding reason why I absolutely must use containers made with BPA. Fact: not only are alternatives to such containers readily available, I also happen to like them better for aesthetic and durability reasons. Conclusion: exposing myself to BPA is an unnecessary risk.
Still, if you think it's harmless you are free to continue using it. At one time people were told (by doctors no less) that cigarettes were beneficial. Now if I had some dire need (as in my life and well-being absolutely depended on it) to use BPA-containing plastics, perhaps I'd take my chances. But I don't.
refilling plastic bottles in public places spreads diseases. our work place had 4 water coolers on each floor and they had to be regularly sanitized because people were getting ill from refilling their bottles
Not to mention the long-term effects of BPA exposure. If you don't know about this, I'd recommend researching it.
Besides, I think stainless steel just looks better and I know I'm not going to break it. When you have and regularly use an electric kettle anyway, you can quickly sanitize a steel container too.
they know # of people that signed up, they just don't know how many people PAID.
Maybe they could politely ask the NSA?
That's the spirit!
Wow. just took a look at both sites, as I am always in the hunt for new sites.. 10 comments on a story was one of the more active ones. Not really a big crowd over there yet...
Most of the time you must choose between quality and quantity.
... for a little while ... but it's very rare.
Having both has been known to occur
No, I got the joke, I just didn't consider it very good.
Slashdot is odd. Most other places, jokes are considered good if they are clever, unexpected, witty, amusing, and most of all, ORIGINAL (around here, most jokes like that will offend someone's sacred cow and get modded as -1 Troll).
Here, jokes are most likely to be enjoyed, encountered, and/or modded up to +5 Funny if they are repetitive, predictable, expected, tiresome memes.
This pattern is so consistent and observable that I think a conclusion about it can be made: slashdot is filled with insecure (and perceived or real) outcasts who have a certain desperation to feel like they fit into a culture of likeminded people. If you view it that way, suddenly the irrational celebration of the ten millionth "sharks with lasers on their heads" joke makes sense. If you view it that way, the hostility they often show when you reject or even question their brand of humor also makes sense.
It's sort of like when you were in high school and the more "average" people suddenly adopted the mannerisms, gestures, and speech patterns of the latest big movie or TV show, all the time pretending that they have always expressed themselves that way. The terror of being an individual! No meme is too repetitive, no joke too lame if it offers even a phony escape from that!
I'll add, most of these controversies purportedly about "science" are really controversies about "the status quo that cherrypicks bits of science to lend itself credibility". Powerful men have defined reality for the proles long before they had any sort of science by which to claim legitimacy. "Scientific data proves it (and only an idiot would question THAT)" can be used (abused by dishonest people) in a manner very similar to "God told me I should rule over you!" The purpose is the same: "don't argue with me, accept it as truth".
If you want to see that in action, look at why aspartame as a food additive was originally not allowed, then why the FDA director was pressured out of the agency, and who replaced him and what his primary goal was (which was of course approving aspartame). That's what money does to what was formerly good science.
It pisses me off to no end when people like you come along and start crying out that we shouldn't teach scientific consensus because "it might be wrong." Yeah, it might be fucking wrong. And there's a chance that 100,000 years of recorded history with the sun coming up in the east might be wrong - it's entirely possible that all those people were colluding in a grand conspiracy! Teach the controversy!
How do you read what he wrote and come up with that in response to it? Do you secretly believe everyone other than yourself is a moron?
It's like Slashdotters think it is weakness to try and understand what the other person believes and in what way it could be reasonable. It depends on the part where what the guy wrote must also be interpreted by the reader, and everything except rigorous mathematical formulae has multiple ways that it can be construed.
There actually are lots of problems with vaccines but you will never find this information without sincerely searching for it yourself, because there are too many monied interests who profit from a single view of the situation.
I think the KJV has some distinct advantages. For instance:
1. It's written in Shakespearian-era English, which has been proved to be about twenty percent cooler and over seventy percent more epic than modern english.
2. Some of the edits were—pardon the expression—simply divine. "I have become a brother to jackals"? Weak. "I am a brother to dragons"? Loving it. Somebody deserved a bonus for that gem.
It's not as well known as it deserves to be, but the early Christians were actually a very diverse group. What we now call Gnosticism was representative of many if not most of them.
Sadly it was systematically stamped out, largely in part because there is such great power in organized religion and adherence to its dogmas.
Excluded, "non-canonical" books like the Gospel of Thomas, the Book of Enoch, and the Gospel of Judas are really fascinating to read.
Not implying. There are a lot of willfully ignorant people that prefer their religion's tale of a 10,000 year old universe
That's both sad and amusing. Having read and learned about the Bible, I can tell you this much: the geneologies in Genesis and elsewhere are not complete and exhuastive. They do not claim to be complete and exhaustive. Nowhere in the Bible is it so much as implied that they are.
The standard ancient Hebrew practice of listing such geneologies is to list only the most famous/notable ancestors. More mediocre and lesser-known ancestors are left out deliberately because they were not considered worthy of mention. Thus there are large gaps of unknown time in the geneologies listed in Genesis and elsewhere. Nothing to the contrary is ever claimed. This fact is not even difficult to find out, except that it does depend on doing your own homework instead of letting the TV and the culture do the thinking for you. The main point of all the geneologies in the Bible is to establish that the line of King David was known (old testament) and is the same line from which Yeshua (new testament) is descended, which is important because various prophecies concerning the Messiah predicted this (e.g. Isaiah).
To infer some kind of final ultimate Age of Humanity or Age of The Earth from this is madness. The Bible never represents it as such, and anyone claiming it does is simply unfamiliar with the very book (and ancient Hebrew culture) they are claiming to understand. The Bible makes no claims whatsoever concerning things like how long ago Adam lived, how long ago Noah lived, how long ago the Flood was, etc.
Most self-described Christians don't know this and that's just plain fucking lazy, to be frank with you. You believe this is the WORD OF GOD and yet you can't be bothered to learn a few easily researched facts about it?? This is what happens when people always have some excuse for why they won't do their own thinking and their own learning.
That's the problem: you're not.
If you are conducting the surveillance of me necessary to make that determination, then your surveillance is faulty. I merely gave an example scenario and I don't share this puerile urge to make everything into a personal matter. So I wrote in such a way that I made no claims about my own programming skill or lack thereof, in order to provide a hypothetical. What I wrote is equally true whether I've never seen a compiler before or whether I am an advanced expert.
The hostility you have makes you appear stupid because it prevents you from thinking of such things. After all, such things might make me seem reasonable and level-headed. That would be like giving aid and comfort to The Enemy, right?
That the old tired meme used to keep honest competent people out of critical jobs; but unlike generals and politicians, programmers able to work on OpenSSL don't grow up in trees, so you will have to make do with (almost) the same people and stuff your "incentives" and "reactions" up your ass.
At no point did I say that anyone should or shouldn't work on this project. Re-read it yourself if you doubt I know what I wrote. To paraphrase: what I said is that it's an unusually important project and therefore the work involves higher stakes. No one is really going to care very much if you screw up a free single-player solitaire game. If you screw up SSL, that can impact many other people in negative ways. By saying that I am hardly keeping competent people from their jobs, though it's flattering that you would ascribe to me such power.
This isn't difficult to acknowledge; at least, it certainly shouldn't be. Is there something about saying it that makes you so angry? Were you built up by praise you didn't really earn and are coming to realize how fragile a foundation that really is, or what (by means of my "platitudes")? Beware of hating someone for no good reason, someone who means well by you and wants good things for you. It's one of the more toxic ways you can pollute yourself.