You're still grossly misreading the original comment. He never claimed that people in uniform did not deserve respect, or jack shit, or whatever the hell you want to try and make him say. He claimed that a particular fact, to wit, the fact that there are good cops, does not necessitate that all cops deserve respect. He said in essence that the following statement is false: "There exist policemen who are upstanding and good, therefore everything in a uniform deserves respect."
Allow me to make an analogy, so that hopefully you will understand what is going on here. If I said "Apples are red. Therefore Bush is the president of the US.", and you replied "No, the redness of apples does not mean that Bush is president of the US.", then would it make any sense at all for me to turn around and call you a dipshit for claiming that Bush is not president? NO! Because you never said that Bush is not president, you said that apples=red does not imply bush=president. Two different things. Got it?
Exactly. Either a ranked method, or approval voting, which I think would be less confusing to the general public (think, including dumb people), and therefore more easily accepted, although not quite as good a choice as a Condorcet method. Do you have any idea how we can begin to get people in general to think about this?
There are good cops and soldiers out there, and while I don't always agree with what they do (moreso for the soldiers), I respect their patience, and their dedication for helping people. But that doesn't mean anyone in a uniform deserves jack shit from you.
GP didn't say that people in uniforms deserved no respect, he said that the fact that there are good cops in existence does not imply that all cops therefore deserve respect automatically. In fact, he says he does respect them! You turned around and said "No you're wrong! They deserve respect because they are under more scrutiny!", which in no way contradicts, nor is contradicted by, what the GP said. Geez. Think before you post.
...it is easy to sit at your keyboard spewing nonsense.
And thank you for such a clever demonstration of this fact.
MI5 tracking '30 UK terror plots'
MI5 knows of 30 terror plots threatening the UK and is keeping 1,600 individuals under surveillance, the security service's head has said.
And where, I ask, has our precious "innocent until proven guilty" gone? This sort of thing (and don't tell me it doesn't happen in the good ol' Land of the Free and Home of the Brave too) is ludicrous. Absolutely flipping ludicrous. Has a crime been committed? Has anyone been accused of committing a crime? No? Then let the police keep their fat noses in their coffee and donuts.
Interesting. I hadn't noticed that. I had seen the dodgy template, but didn't notice its CID. That's very odd that the integer values clamp to the max, rather than rolling over. I wonder why it would be implemented that way.
Does this mean that comment id#16777215 has the longest thread in history?
Not likely. The parent pointer doesn't just max out (I would think, but I don't know how SQL handles things like this), but rather roll over. So many comments would point at random other comments as their parent. Except that nearly all of these would in fact be in a different article, and would therefore not form a thread.
I'd expect from looking at it that concrete would have a higher albedo, and thus contribute to cooling. But then again, I have stepped on the sidewalk vs. the grass barefoot on a Texas summer day... The concrete you could fry an egg on, the grass not so much. So it would seem then that the sidewalk is absorbing more heat after all.
Then again, the grass certainly presents more surface area to the air for removal of heat by conduction. So not so sure again. Anyone know of a good reference here? To google I go.
I mean, look how quick we got to 16M comments. 4.1 Gigacomments will come in hardly any time at all. I predict we'll be doing all this again in merely a few weeks!
Its called Embrace, Extend, and Extinguish, my friend. We've seen it before, and we'd be surprised not to see it again. A dog kicked several times cowers. Or bites.
The design used something pretty close to a solar panel: a flat white plastic surface, with a thick, dark-tinted, glass panel. Between the plastic back of the panel and the glass, the inventor put a black felt surface, on top of a black plastic sheet.
You do realize that there is more to a solar panel than just coloring some glass black, don't you? I'll assume you do, and that there is some actual way (other than mere appearance) in which this remotely resembles a photovoltaic cell array, and ask you what it is. How is this anything like a solar panel?
I think Dvorak is kinda like skeet for/.ers. He's so easy to flame, we kinda use him for target practice, or even just as a way to relax after a hard day.
"Honey, bring me my coffee, my slippers, my newspaper, and oh, John Dvorak. Its been a hard day."
As it is sometimes said, both parties are running a train toward a cliff, it is just that one party wants to go off the cliff a litter faster than the other party.
Of course, in the quantum mechanical scenario of a particle heading towards a rectangular well, there is some probability of reflection. That is, if we go towards the cliff just right, there is some chance that we will suddenly be headed back the other direction!
(I know, I know, it is really bad science to say so. I'm not so uptight that I won't whore out my field for the sake of a joke.)
Firstly the idea of each user having their own remote space is good in theory.
Except that it shouldn't come from the OS. This is about on par with bundling IE, WMP, and friends. It will make it just that much more difficult for people to switch. "You mean, with Linux, I won't get a share.live.com account any more!? Of course I'm not doing that!" Even if other perfectly good (and likely better) remote spaces are available, they will be anti-competed out of the public eye, if not out of existence.
The OS could reasonably come with good support for a remote space protocol, like WebDAV or somesuch. The OS making company could even provide an account conforming to such a protocol. However, having OS support for the OS maker's remote space and not for anybody else's is just going to be bad.
OTOH, if they simply automatically register you for the space when you buy a license, and provide only a web interface, or an OS interface that is compliant with some protocol, then I don't so much have a problem with it.
Except then, when they decide they don't like OOo (just because it is unfamiliar), they'll decide that it is Linux's fault. So, they should switch to Linux but keep using MS office. Oh wait...
Well, yes. I did figure that out after I RTFA (gasp!). However, I was responding to the GP who implied that you could verify your single vote under our existing system.
I think that we can assume a uniform distribution on parties. But your forget the independents. If a large segment of the population flips a coin to decide whether they vote straight rep or dem, then those two candidates in each race get a large boost. Not relative to one another, but versus independents they do.
Hypothetical Numbers: Suppose 1/2 the population doesn't care, but votes anyway, by flipping a coin for rep or dem. Now, of the remaining half, who do care, suppose that just under one third will vote rep, just under one third dem, and just over one third will vote for the independent candidate. If everyone who doesn't care stayed home, the independent would have a plurality. If everyone who doesn't care votes, then it is a tossup between the rep and dem candidate, each of whom now have just under 5/12 of the total vote, whereas the independent, preferred by caring voters, only has just over 1/6, or 2/12 of the total vote.
Firstly, your statements are not footnoted either. For all I know, you could have written these statements off the top of your head. If you are going to hold someone else to the standard of citing sources, then you perhaps ought to hold yourself to the same standard.
Researchers looked at 244 glaciers on the Antarctic Peninsula.
Their research shows that since the 1950s, 87 per cent of the glaciers have shrunk.
This is all well and good, but then look back at what was in the article you are debunking:
However, very nearly all of the world's 160,000+ glaciers (this surprisingly large figure is
from the UN's 2001 report) have never been visited by humankind or measured in detail.
He cites a source, and claims that there are 160 thousand, or more, glaciers worldwide. 244 glaciers is tiny in comparison. One might say that 244 would make a decent representative sample, but all of the 244 are found on the Antarctic Peninsula. A good representative sample would look at a scattering of glaciers all over the world. This is a little bit like taking a Gallup poll of people living only in Dallas, TX, in July, and asking if they think it is too hot outside. If you convince yourself that that is a representative sample of the world population, then you will be convinced that nearly everyone nearly always thinks it is too hot outside.
I realize that this does not bring your entire point crashing to the ground, but you had better be a little more careful before you come across sounding so certain that you are absolutely right.
Stefan Boltzmann applies to a perfect blackbody. The Earth is not a perfect blackbody. In fact, not alot of things are. Doesn't it seem wrong to say that energy exposure always raises temperature to the same degree regardless of the object?
IAAPhysicist, and I can tell you that the Stefan-Boltzmann law applies quite well to an awful lot of things, even though they are not perfect blackbodies. For a perfect blackbody, the Stefan-Boltzmann law is exactly right. For most other things, it is a quite good approximation. The earth is far closer to a perfect blackbody than you might expect.
eh? How do you go about verifying a single vote then? Individual vote verification is a serious problem and a threat to democracy (vote-buying/bullying), so if you've figured out a way to do it, it might be a good idea to try to do something about stopping it.
Both are very serious problems, yet most people just do not feel the immediacy and seriousness of these problems. So, they hesitate to do anything that is substantive in fixing these problems -- until the day that the huge calamity (i.e. famine or environmental disaster) hits.
Or perhaps people have faith in the rate of progress of technology.
Slashdot Mirror
You're still grossly misreading the original comment. He never claimed that people in uniform did not deserve respect, or jack shit, or whatever the hell you want to try and make him say. He claimed that a particular fact, to wit, the fact that there are good cops, does not necessitate that all cops deserve respect. He said in essence that the following statement is false: "There exist policemen who are upstanding and good, therefore everything in a uniform deserves respect."
Allow me to make an analogy, so that hopefully you will understand what is going on here. If I said "Apples are red. Therefore Bush is the president of the US.", and you replied "No, the redness of apples does not mean that Bush is president of the US.", then would it make any sense at all for me to turn around and call you a dipshit for claiming that Bush is not president? NO! Because you never said that Bush is not president, you said that apples=red does not imply bush=president. Two different things. Got it?
Exactly. Either a ranked method, or approval voting, which I think would be less confusing to the general public (think, including dumb people), and therefore more easily accepted, although not quite as good a choice as a Condorcet method. Do you have any idea how we can begin to get people in general to think about this?
GP didn't say that people in uniforms deserved no respect, he said that the fact that there are good cops in existence does not imply that all cops therefore deserve respect automatically. In fact, he says he does respect them! You turned around and said "No you're wrong! They deserve respect because they are under more scrutiny!", which in no way contradicts, nor is contradicted by, what the GP said. Geez. Think before you post.
And thank you for such a clever demonstration of this fact.
Interesting. I hadn't noticed that. I had seen the dodgy template, but didn't notice its CID. That's very odd that the integer values clamp to the max, rather than rolling over. I wonder why it would be implemented that way.
It is hopeless, as well as being pointless. No meaning is lost here, so why even waste your effort trying to resist this kind of change?
Don't get me wrong, in cases where is meaning is confused or lost, I'm quite the nazi. But here it is just pointless.
I'd expect from looking at it that concrete would have a higher albedo, and thus contribute to cooling. But then again, I have stepped on the sidewalk vs. the grass barefoot on a Texas summer day... The concrete you could fry an egg on, the grass not so much. So it would seem then that the sidewalk is absorbing more heat after all.
Then again, the grass certainly presents more surface area to the air for removal of heat by conduction. So not so sure again. Anyone know of a good reference here? To google I go.
I mean, look how quick we got to 16M comments. 4.1 Gigacomments will come in hardly any time at all. I predict we'll be doing all this again in merely a few weeks!
Its called Embrace, Extend, and Extinguish, my friend. We've seen it before, and we'd be surprised not to see it again. A dog kicked several times cowers. Or bites.
Thank you for the clarification. I understand now. I hope I did not offend, as that was not my intention (although I do like your sig). Good day sir!
I think Dvorak is kinda like skeet for /.ers. He's so easy to flame, we kinda use him for target practice, or even just as a way to relax after a hard day.
"Honey, bring me my coffee, my slippers, my newspaper, and oh, John Dvorak. Its been a hard day."
(I know, I know, it is really bad science to say so. I'm not so uptight that I won't whore out my field for the sake of a joke.)
The OS could reasonably come with good support for a remote space protocol, like WebDAV or somesuch. The OS making company could even provide an account conforming to such a protocol. However, having OS support for the OS maker's remote space and not for anybody else's is just going to be bad.
OTOH, if they simply automatically register you for the space when you buy a license, and provide only a web interface, or an OS interface that is compliant with some protocol, then I don't so much have a problem with it.
Except then, when they decide they don't like OOo (just because it is unfamiliar), they'll decide that it is Linux's fault. So, they should switch to Linux but keep using MS office. Oh wait...
Well, yes. I did figure that out after I RTFA (gasp!). However, I was responding to the GP who implied that you could verify your single vote under our existing system.
I think that we can assume a uniform distribution on parties. But your forget the independents. If a large segment of the population flips a coin to decide whether they vote straight rep or dem, then those two candidates in each race get a large boost. Not relative to one another, but versus independents they do.
Hypothetical Numbers: Suppose 1/2 the population doesn't care, but votes anyway, by flipping a coin for rep or dem. Now, of the remaining half, who do care, suppose that just under one third will vote rep, just under one third dem, and just over one third will vote for the independent candidate. If everyone who doesn't care stayed home, the independent would have a plurality. If everyone who doesn't care votes, then it is a tossup between the rep and dem candidate, each of whom now have just under 5/12 of the total vote, whereas the independent, preferred by caring voters, only has just over 1/6, or 2/12 of the total vote.
You mean Argentina?
This is all well and good, but then look back at what was in the article you are debunking:
He cites a source, and claims that there are 160 thousand, or more, glaciers worldwide. 244 glaciers is tiny in comparison. One might say that 244 would make a decent representative sample, but all of the 244 are found on the Antarctic Peninsula. A good representative sample would look at a scattering of glaciers all over the world. This is a little bit like taking a Gallup poll of people living only in Dallas, TX, in July, and asking if they think it is too hot outside. If you convince yourself that that is a representative sample of the world population, then you will be convinced that nearly everyone nearly always thinks it is too hot outside.
I realize that this does not bring your entire point crashing to the ground, but you had better be a little more careful before you come across sounding so certain that you are absolutely right.
eh? How do you go about verifying a single vote then? Individual vote verification is a serious problem and a threat to democracy (vote-buying/bullying), so if you've figured out a way to do it, it might be a good idea to try to do something about stopping it.