I'm reminded by Ashcroft (Bush's last Attorney General -- remember him?) covering up the statue "The Spirit of Justice" with curtains so that its one bare breast would be hidden.
Funny you should bring that up. During my last two years in college we had Al Goldstein and Cal Thomas do a mini-debate centering around pornography (can't remember the exact title). At the end we, the students, were allowed to ask questions. I asked Cal, who obviously is against pornography, what about works of art such as statues or paintings. Does he support or endorse covering up those?
Needless to say I got some boos from the audience while Cal responded that those are different and it wouldn't happen. Fast forward a 15 years later and what happens? The first act of the new Attorney General of the United States is to cover up the partially naked statue of a woman so her breasts wouldn't be seen when he was giving press conferences and so people wouldn't have to look at the nudity!
I hate it when I'm right. I'd love to ask Cal what he thought of the maneuver and ask if he remembers my question (extremely doubtful though he may remember the debate itself) and would he like to reconsider his answer.
Which of course will then show the world that we talk the talk but not walk the walk. In other words, we want you to have democratic elections only so long as the outcome is the one we want.
I'm actually writing an article for my website (no, you can't have the address. It's a very cruddy site), where I've been posting editorial-type writings for years, about these elections. I mention that the neocon record re: supporting dictators and such isn't one to be proud of and include Pinochet and the Shah of Iran.
I look at it this way: If we or Israel go after the democratically elected leaders of Palestine then neither country can whine or complain about others trying to do the same to them. You can't have it both ways. Either one has to accept that in democratic elections things don't always turn out like you want them to (witness our recent elections) or it's acceptable to go after the elected person(s) so you can get you want despite there being democratic elections.
The recent elections in Palestine (January 9, 2005) were, judging by continuing announcement such as this, more democratic than we have here in the U.S.* in spite of the Israeli occupation**. For reference:
Even with all the illegal restrictions that Israel imposed on movement in the West Bank and Gaza and most importantly, Palestinian citizens living in East Jerusalem***, the Palestinian elections have a valid paper trail that can be checked as well as having independent, neutral monitors observe how the voting took place.
Does this mean that the Palestinian elections were perfect? Of course not. No election is. However, they made a good faith effort to have as free and open an election process as possible under the occupation conditions. They allowed the monitors full access to every aspect of the vote including the final vote counts.
One would think that if we're trying to spread the benefit of democratic elections to the world we should first start by taking a serious look at our own election process and bring in outside monitors to help us get a handle on this kind of nonsense. There is absolutely no excuse for these kind of activities to take place other than to manipulate election results.
They're not trying to sell their product to you, they're trying to brand their name/product/etc.
That is very true. However, I use commercials as a list of who not to buy from. As I have said in postings in the past I don't watch many commercials. In fact, I go out of my way to avoid watching/listening/reading any commercial whether it be on tv, radio or in print.
That said, there are two companies in particular who advertise in my area who I will never, ever, even if they are the only two companies of their type within a 1000 miles of me, buy from. I know their names very well but their commercials are so obnoxious that in the case of one, all I need to hear is a fraction of a word of their radio ad and I change the station. The other is a tv ad and when I see that horrendous womans face I change the channel or hit mute.
Just because people know the advertisers doesn't mean anything. Brand recognition without accompanying sales is simply wasted money.
Woot! I got three rejected stories in a week which were then posted. All were posted in my Journal well before they appeared on the front page. What's my prize?
Armor for the Olympic skier Wednesday February 15, @12:43PM Rejected
Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Saturday February 18, @01:47PM
Apple uses poetry to dissuade hackers Friday February 17, @08:30AM Rejected
Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Sunday February 19, @01:02AM
AOL to charge equally for dial-up & broadband Wednesday February 22, @08:16AM Rejected
Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Wednesday February 22, @05:18PM
Please note that all three were posted by ScuttleMonkey. Conspiracy? You be the judge.
That's now two stories that I had submitted and had rejected which now, mysteriously, appear. Don't believe me, go check my Journal. Here's the rejection notice:
Apple uses poetry to dissuade hackers Friday February 17, @08:30AM Rejected
I do have to give the editors a bit of credit. This time it only took 2 1/2 days to get the story posted compared to the 3 days for the story about armor for skiers. Yeah, that one has been in my Journal as well.
Seems that for all the talk by Taco and Company about how things are done they haven't changed at all.
Yup, you guessed. I'm going to grumble. I submitted this story 3 DAYS AGO and had it rejected:
Armor for the Olympic skier Wednesday February 15, @12:43PM Rejected
Not only was the story rejected but the one which has now been accepted, 3 DAYS LATE, is the same story!
Keep up the good work folks. I'm sure someday we'll see stories about that new operating system that is all the rage. You know the one I mean. Windows 95.
Picard: "Sleep..."
Beverly: "He's regaining consciousness."
Picard: "Sleep..."
Troi: "It's Captain Picard speaking, not Locutus."
Picard: "Sleep, Data."
Beverly: [To Picard] "You're exhausted."
Data: "Yes, Doctor."
Data: "If I may make a supposition. I do not believe his message was intended to express fatigue, but to suggest a course of action."
Riker: "Mister Crusher, engag--"
Data: "Data to Bridge, standby."
Data: "I am attempting to penetrate the Borg regenerate subcommand path. It is a low priority system that may be accessable."
... a few moments pass as Datas face twitches...
Riker: "Mister Data, your final report."
Data: "Standby."
Riker: "I *can't*, Mister Data!"
... a few moments pass then silence...
Riker: "Mister Data, what the hell happened?"
Data: "I successfully planted a command into the Borg collective consciousness. It misdirected them to believe that it was time to regenerate. In effect, I put them all to sleep."
Riker: "'Sleep'?"
Data: "Yes, sir."
Oh wait, this article talks about what happens when your subconscious mind goes into action, not what happens when you shut down a Borg cube and thus don't have to ram your ship into it.
Afer reading what I wrote I realized I left out a very important part. Let me restate and rephrase so that what I was attempting to say is more clear.
So is adding/withdrawing money from an ATM. You shouldn't need a receipt to verify that the correct amount of money was withdrawn from your account because it's all electronic yet amazingly you get a receipt to prove what you just did. You have physical evidence to support your claim. You don't rely just on what the computer says took place.
The question is, why should anyone be against a voting system where people know that their vote was counted?
Because if one has a verifiable paper trail it makes it that much harder to rig an election.
Don't get me wrong, I use ATMs all the time, and trust it with my money, so I don't see why it should be so hard to come up with a secure and easy way to use voting machines.
This is the same thing I keep harping on. The usual response from Diebold (and others) is that because it is electronic there is no need for a paper ballot.
So is adding/withdrawing money from an ATM. You shouldn't need a receipt to verify that the correct amount of money was withdrawn from your account because it's all electronic.
The same thing goes for grocery shopping. Since it's all electronic there shouldn't be a need to have a paper receipt of all your purposes. You should be able to trust the system didn't overbill you for a product or add in products you didn't buy.
But hey, who am I to use logic when talking about a verifiable paper trail. After all, I should just accept that the government is always right in these matters because the companies making these products have told them there is nothing to worry about.
He found that paying geeks to code without assigning them managers lead to "shiny geek toys", rather than the product he was actually paying for.
Do ya think? How long did it take him to reach that conclusion?
Seriously folks, this is a given and one of the main reasons I don't buy into all the hype about the electronic toy du jour. Everytime I see an article somewhere which says that 'X' is the latest electronic whiz toy that everyone must have I just roll my eyes and move along. (As a side note to marketers, I don't watch your commercials or read your flyers in the paper. You may now explode with unmitigated rage because I'm stealing from you for not watching what you produce.)
I don't want to be forced to buy a DVD player which plays DVDs, mpegs, connects to the net, calls my vet or offers me advice on what wine goes well with acadian rigatoni. I want the machine to play DVDs. Period.
By their very nature geeks (true geeks) will shovel every bell and whistle into a device they can get away with because that is what they do. They want to see how much cruft they can tack onto the hardware simply to see if it can be done. Top that off with manuals (the paper ones if you're lucky enough to get one) which are so poorly written and obtuse that the average user has to take lessons to learn how to program their device, and the market becomes filled with devices whose half-life is as long as the life of a fruit fly.
To all who produce this crap, here's a hint: Stop making a swiss army knife out of every product. If you absolutely must put tinsel on the tree, make three trees. The first is bare bones (i.e. just a cell phone. no music, games, etc). The second has a few more items (include games and music). The third has everything (bleeding edge). If you check your sales figures you'll be surprised to learn which one sells the best (hint: it's not number three).
Funny you should say that. Fark had a link to an article which found out where the people in the Gaza Strip got their hands on Danish flags so quickly. Turns out a businessman was selling them ($11 a flag).
In the article he mentions that he gets the Israeli flags which are regularly burned during protests from an Israeli merchant. Talk about capitalism!
Some people just want theories to be designated as such. If the big bang is proven than there can be no debate, it fits in nicely with Biblical doctrine anyway.
There is no issue with calling something a theory. The issue comes in when people call something a theory and mean that it is a guess. Which is exactly what this nutjob was trying to do (and yes, nutjob is applicable in this situation).
Further, you like so many others out there seem to think that one proves a theory. You don't. Theories attempt to explain why X happens. That does not mean that the theory explains every nuance or permutation of why X happens. It only means that what the theory says sufficiently explains why X happens.
The Big Bang Theory isn't proven. All that has happened is that what the theory predicts has, so far, been supported by the evidence. That is different than saying the theory is proven.
I meant more along the lines that religion deals with the unknowable (what happens when we die, is there a heaven and hell, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, etc) whereas science deals with that which can, eventually, be knowable (what happens when stars collide, what happens when you mix vinegar and baking soda, how much force to you need to escape earths gravity, etc).
However, an interesting intersection happens between science and religion in one area: Where did the all the matter come from to start the Big Bang? What was all that matter sitting in before the Big Bang? What is the universe expanding into?
To me, those three questions are unanswerable. However, from the scientific side one can continue to explore possible answers to these questions but one can never provide enough evidence to satisfactorally answer the questions.
Religion can explore those same questions by invoking a religious being(s) but again, can never supply a satisfactory answer.
Whenever someone says 'theory' in a derogatory manner I point them to this page which does a very nice job of explaining the differences between a hypothesis, theory and law.
It doesn't change their mind but at least they can't claim they weren't informed of the differences the next time someone (again) corrects them.
The only problem with the Theory of Gravity is it isn't really called that. It is called the Law of Gravity or, more formally, The Universal Law of Gravitation.
The moment you say Law people assume it means an absolute fact, which, in a sense, it is. However, it is still a theory in the sense that it makes a prediction and as far as we know holds true but it is only for one specific event whereas a theory describes a series of events.
I'm having a running discussion on a tv web forum re: Evolution and ID and every time I use the Theory of Gravity the person keeps saying it's the Law of Gravity, as if that negates the fact it is still a theory.
Then again, the person has never admitted that my original statement, that Electromagnetism or General Relativity are also theories and I don't see them having an issue with them or any other theory.
Don't forget the 10,000 member of the clergy who signed an online petition explicitly stating that Intelligent Design is a religious idea trying to be passed off as science and should not be taught.
For as much as I like to harp on the religious right (all religions, not just christianity), it is refreshing to see people who understand that science is science and religion is religion and there is no problem with the two co-existing so long as neither tries to intrude onto the others territory. Though it is interesting to note that religion has asked science to help solve at least one of its mysteries, the shroud of Turin.
Every time I hear someone say, "But it's only a theory, not a fact" I cringe and then immediately ask them if they have a problem with the Theory of Electromagnetism or the Theory of General Relativity since they too are "just theories" and not facts. The usual response is a blank stare as their mind tries to not assplode from having to defend such a ridiculous statement.
Slashdot Mirror
Depends on the circumstances. If the cute new girl at work happens to be your boss then people will certainly care to read all about your adventure.
Funny you should bring that up. During my last two years in college we had Al Goldstein and Cal Thomas do a mini-debate centering around pornography (can't remember the exact title). At the end we, the students, were allowed to ask questions. I asked Cal, who obviously is against pornography, what about works of art such as statues or paintings. Does he support or endorse covering up those?
Needless to say I got some boos from the audience while Cal responded that those are different and it wouldn't happen. Fast forward a 15 years later and what happens? The first act of the new Attorney General of the United States is to cover up the partially naked statue of a woman so her breasts wouldn't be seen when he was giving press conferences and so people wouldn't have to look at the nudity!
I hate it when I'm right. I'd love to ask Cal what he thought of the maneuver and ask if he remembers my question (extremely doubtful though he may remember the debate itself) and would he like to reconsider his answer.
Which of course will then show the world that we talk the talk but not walk the walk. In other words, we want you to have democratic elections only so long as the outcome is the one we want.
I'm actually writing an article for my website (no, you can't have the address. It's a very cruddy site), where I've been posting editorial-type writings for years, about these elections. I mention that the neocon record re: supporting dictators and such isn't one to be proud of and include Pinochet and the Shah of Iran.
I look at it this way: If we or Israel go after the democratically elected leaders of Palestine then neither country can whine or complain about others trying to do the same to them. You can't have it both ways. Either one has to accept that in democratic elections things don't always turn out like you want them to (witness our recent elections) or it's acceptable to go after the elected person(s) so you can get you want despite there being democratic elections.
European Election Observation Mission, Final Report (pdf format).
Even with all the illegal restrictions that Israel imposed on movement in the West Bank and Gaza and most importantly, Palestinian citizens living in East Jerusalem***, the Palestinian elections have a valid paper trail that can be checked as well as having independent, neutral monitors observe how the voting took place.
Does this mean that the Palestinian elections were perfect? Of course not. No election is. However, they made a good faith effort to have as free and open an election process as possible under the occupation conditions. They allowed the monitors full access to every aspect of the vote including the final vote counts.
One would think that if we're trying to spread the benefit of democratic elections to the world we should first start by taking a serious look at our own election process and bring in outside monitors to help us get a handle on this kind of nonsense. There is absolutely no excuse for these kind of activities to take place other than to manipulate election results.
*Investigation into the 2004 U.S. Election
**Palestinian Monioring Group, Israeli Obstructions of the Palestinian Election Process
***Observer Report, Norwegian Assocation of NGOs (pdf format)
That is very true. However, I use commercials as a list of who not to buy from. As I have said in postings in the past I don't watch many commercials. In fact, I go out of my way to avoid watching/listening/reading any commercial whether it be on tv, radio or in print.
That said, there are two companies in particular who advertise in my area who I will never, ever, even if they are the only two companies of their type within a 1000 miles of me, buy from. I know their names very well but their commercials are so obnoxious that in the case of one, all I need to hear is a fraction of a word of their radio ad and I change the station. The other is a tv ad and when I see that horrendous womans face I change the channel or hit mute.
Just because people know the advertisers doesn't mean anything. Brand recognition without accompanying sales is simply wasted money.
Woot! I got three rejected stories in a week which were then posted. All were posted in my Journal well before they appeared on the front page. What's my prize?
Armor for the Olympic skier Wednesday February 15, @12:43PM Rejected
Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Saturday February 18, @01:47PM
Apple uses poetry to dissuade hackers Friday February 17, @08:30AM Rejected
Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Sunday February 19, @01:02AM
AOL to charge equally for dial-up & broadband Wednesday February 22, @08:16AM Rejected
Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Wednesday February 22, @05:18PM
Please note that all three were posted by ScuttleMonkey. Conspiracy? You be the judge.
That's now two stories that I had submitted and had rejected which now, mysteriously, appear. Don't believe me, go check my Journal. Here's the rejection notice:
Apple uses poetry to dissuade hackers Friday February 17, @08:30AM Rejected
I do have to give the editors a bit of credit. This time it only took 2 1/2 days to get the story posted compared to the 3 days for the story about armor for skiers. Yeah, that one has been in my Journal as well.
Seems that for all the talk by Taco and Company about how things are done they haven't changed at all.
Yup, you guessed. I'm going to grumble. I submitted this story 3 DAYS AGO and had it rejected:
Armor for the Olympic skier Wednesday February 15, @12:43PM Rejected
Not only was the story rejected but the one which has now been accepted, 3 DAYS LATE, is the same story!
Keep up the good work folks. I'm sure someday we'll see stories about that new operating system that is all the rage. You know the one I mean. Windows 95.
Beverly: "He's regaining consciousness."
Picard: "Sleep..."
Troi: "It's Captain Picard speaking, not Locutus."
Picard: "Sleep, Data."
Beverly: [To Picard] "You're exhausted."
Data: "Yes, Doctor."
Data: "If I may make a supposition. I do not believe his message was intended to express fatigue, but to suggest a course of action."
Riker: "Mister Crusher, engag--"
Data: "Data to Bridge, standby."
Data: "I am attempting to penetrate the Borg regenerate subcommand path. It is a low priority system that may be accessable."
Riker: "Mister Data, your final report."
Data: "Standby."
Riker: "I *can't*, Mister Data!"
Riker: "Mister Data, what the hell happened?"
Data: "I successfully planted a command into the Borg collective consciousness. It misdirected them to believe that it was time to regenerate. In effect, I put them all to sleep."
Riker: "'Sleep'?"
Data: "Yes, sir."
Oh wait, this article talks about what happens when your subconscious mind goes into action, not what happens when you shut down a Borg cube and thus don't have to ram your ship into it.
This administration is doing its best to make that a reality
I agree, this would be a problem. The only resolution I can see is to take the voter at face value and use the paper as their 'official' ballot.
There are issues that need to be addressed and this is certainly one that needs to be looked into.
Afer reading what I wrote I realized I left out a very important part. Let me restate and rephrase so that what I was attempting to say is more clear.
So is adding/withdrawing money from an ATM. You shouldn't need a receipt to verify that the correct amount of money was withdrawn from your account because it's all electronic yet amazingly you get a receipt to prove what you just did. You have physical evidence to support your claim. You don't rely just on what the computer says took place.
Because if one has a verifiable paper trail it makes it that much harder to rig an election.
Don't get me wrong, I use ATMs all the time, and trust it with my money, so I don't see why it should be so hard to come up with a secure and easy way to use voting machines.
This is the same thing I keep harping on. The usual response from Diebold (and others) is that because it is electronic there is no need for a paper ballot.
So is adding/withdrawing money from an ATM. You shouldn't need a receipt to verify that the correct amount of money was withdrawn from your account because it's all electronic.
The same thing goes for grocery shopping. Since it's all electronic there shouldn't be a need to have a paper receipt of all your purposes. You should be able to trust the system didn't overbill you for a product or add in products you didn't buy.
But hey, who am I to use logic when talking about a verifiable paper trail. After all, I should just accept that the government is always right in these matters because the companies making these products have told them there is nothing to worry about.
Nope. I know they do exist. Was just trying to make a funny comment.
Sid Meier was very forward looking. Tidal generators anyone?
Ok, maybe not the same as tidal generators but pretty close and, presumably, a bit more consistent.
Do ya think? How long did it take him to reach that conclusion?
Seriously folks, this is a given and one of the main reasons I don't buy into all the hype about the electronic toy du jour. Everytime I see an article somewhere which says that 'X' is the latest electronic whiz toy that everyone must have I just roll my eyes and move along. (As a side note to marketers, I don't watch your commercials or read your flyers in the paper. You may now explode with unmitigated rage because I'm stealing from you for not watching what you produce.)
I don't want to be forced to buy a DVD player which plays DVDs, mpegs, connects to the net, calls my vet or offers me advice on what wine goes well with acadian rigatoni. I want the machine to play DVDs. Period.
By their very nature geeks (true geeks) will shovel every bell and whistle into a device they can get away with because that is what they do. They want to see how much cruft they can tack onto the hardware simply to see if it can be done. Top that off with manuals (the paper ones if you're lucky enough to get one) which are so poorly written and obtuse that the average user has to take lessons to learn how to program their device, and the market becomes filled with devices whose half-life is as long as the life of a fruit fly.
To all who produce this crap, here's a hint: Stop making a swiss army knife out of every product. If you absolutely must put tinsel on the tree, make three trees. The first is bare bones (i.e. just a cell phone. no music, games, etc). The second has a few more items (include games and music). The third has everything (bleeding edge). If you check your sales figures you'll be surprised to learn which one sells the best (hint: it's not number three).
Goatse might be better.
China to require registration for text messaging Thursday February 02, @12:44PM Rejected
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China_Business/HB03Cb 04.html
Had this story been posted this wouldn't be news.
Funny you should say that. Fark had a link to an article which found out where the people in the Gaza Strip got their hands on Danish flags so quickly. Turns out a businessman was selling them ($11 a flag).
In the article he mentions that he gets the Israeli flags which are regularly burned during protests from an Israeli merchant. Talk about capitalism!
Here's the Reuters link in question.
Since they're already violating the 4th Amendment, why do you think they'd start worrying about it now?
There is no issue with calling something a theory. The issue comes in when people call something a theory and mean that it is a guess. Which is exactly what this nutjob was trying to do (and yes, nutjob is applicable in this situation).
Further, you like so many others out there seem to think that one proves a theory. You don't. Theories attempt to explain why X happens. That does not mean that the theory explains every nuance or permutation of why X happens. It only means that what the theory says sufficiently explains why X happens.
The Big Bang Theory isn't proven. All that has happened is that what the theory predicts has, so far, been supported by the evidence. That is different than saying the theory is proven.
I meant more along the lines that religion deals with the unknowable (what happens when we die, is there a heaven and hell, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, etc) whereas science deals with that which can, eventually, be knowable (what happens when stars collide, what happens when you mix vinegar and baking soda, how much force to you need to escape earths gravity, etc).
However, an interesting intersection happens between science and religion in one area: Where did the all the matter come from to start the Big Bang? What was all that matter sitting in before the Big Bang? What is the universe expanding into?
To me, those three questions are unanswerable. However, from the scientific side one can continue to explore possible answers to these questions but one can never provide enough evidence to satisfactorally answer the questions.
Religion can explore those same questions by invoking a religious being(s) but again, can never supply a satisfactory answer.
Whenever someone says 'theory' in a derogatory manner I point them to this page which does a very nice job of explaining the differences between a hypothesis, theory and law.
It doesn't change their mind but at least they can't claim they weren't informed of the differences the next time someone (again) corrects them.
The only problem with the Theory of Gravity is it isn't really called that. It is called the Law of Gravity or, more formally, The Universal Law of Gravitation.
The moment you say Law people assume it means an absolute fact, which, in a sense, it is. However, it is still a theory in the sense that it makes a prediction and as far as we know holds true but it is only for one specific event whereas a theory describes a series of events.
I'm having a running discussion on a tv web forum re: Evolution and ID and every time I use the Theory of Gravity the person keeps saying it's the Law of Gravity, as if that negates the fact it is still a theory.
Then again, the person has never admitted that my original statement, that Electromagnetism or General Relativity are also theories and I don't see them having an issue with them or any other theory.
For as much as I like to harp on the religious right (all religions, not just christianity), it is refreshing to see people who understand that science is science and religion is religion and there is no problem with the two co-existing so long as neither tries to intrude onto the others territory. Though it is interesting to note that religion has asked science to help solve at least one of its mysteries, the shroud of Turin.
Every time I hear someone say, "But it's only a theory, not a fact" I cringe and then immediately ask them if they have a problem with the Theory of Electromagnetism or the Theory of General Relativity since they too are "just theories" and not facts. The usual response is a blank stare as their mind tries to not assplode from having to defend such a ridiculous statement.