Ok, so some people claim that they don't see my sig because they have them turned off... But you HAVE one. Why would you turn them off and yet have one yourself?
Looking at what they consider a "social networking site," I'd say that Slashdot would qualify. You talk to other people about common interests, you can add "friends" and "foes," I notice that you've even made at least one entry in your/. journal.
Congratulations, you're using a social networking site! They're not all MySpace, you know.
If you think that Bush and his cronies invented the term WMD, perhaps you should look up the history of the term. Of course it's obviously been used by them to scare up images of nuclear weapons even when it doesn't only mean that, but they were far from the first to use it to describe biological or chemical weapons.
If you read my posts, you'd see that my point was that SOME media outlets reported the story, and SOME didn't. Which means that SOME people heard about the story, and SOME didn't. It doesn't require anyone being clairvoyant - just looking at the right news source on the right day. I'm sure that it's entirely possible that 50% of those polled get their news from some other source than CNN.com, and that it was reported more widely than only at foxnews.com.
a) With respect to this particular argument, yes, the point has to be made multiple times. People can easily dismiss one occurrence as having a bad day - you need multiple instances to show that a media source is consistently biased. I could also point out another article, which somehow mentioned Rumsfeld. The article had *nothing* to do with the war in Iraq, but at one point they threw in something like "Rumsfeld, who has been strongly criticized for something something Iraq". There was no need to bring up criticisms of his actions that were totally unrelated to the article, except to set a tone that was against him. (Note: I don't like Rumsfeld either. But even I could see that this was a silly thing to put in this article and was indicative of bias.)
b) Notice that the person who made religion the issue was the guy who did the shooting. HE was the one who declared himself to be an American Muslim who was angry at Israel before shooting a bunch of Jews. Many news outlets reported the facts of the story, which included this statement. The statement strongly implies, if not outright announces, that the attack was religiously motivated. CNN, by not reporting this part of the story, tried to remove religion as an issue in a tragic episode where it clearly *was* the issue. That's just as bad as making it the issue when it's not.
Honestly, I haven't searched CNN for later stories. All I know is that on the day they were found, there was no mention of them at all when at least one other news outlet did mention them. I also didn't say that we found enough to justify the war - in fact, if you'll read my post I implied the opposite. Just that, technically, we did find some, so people aren't that stupid for telling a pollster that we did.
But the problem is that the findings in no way matched the capability discussed as a precursor to the invasion and noone in their right mind can consider the items found justification for said invasion
Did I ever say that they did? The OP (and others I've run into) used the fact that X% of Americans believe we found WMDs as evidence of American stupidity. All I'm saying is that, technically, we DID find WMDs, so it's not a stupid thing to say in a poll. Just because you belive we found them doesn't mean you think we found enough to justify war, or that you think we found enough to be a danger, or anything else. Just that, technically, we did find them, so if that's as far as the poll goes, it doesn't tell you anything about the stupidity of respondents or their political leanings or feelings about the war.
Well, Wikipedia disagrees. However, I do agree that there is a huge difference between most nuclear and biological/chemical weapons, so it is a bit misleading to lump them all together.
A more recent example - when that guy went on a shooting spree in the Jewish center in Seattle. The Jerusalem Post, BBC, and Fox News all quoted him as saying "I am an American Muslim and I am angry at Israel" before shooting. The CNN article didn't use the word "Muslim" once. Because, you know, mentioning that one Muslim did a bad thing is too terribly un-PC and could make someone somewhere hate ALL Muslims.
Chomsky himself has some odd evolutionary ideas. One sticking point between him and later linguists/cognitive scientists is that he doesn't think that the capacity for language evolved through natural selection, but must have been a by-product of something else or else evolved through some as-yet-unknown mechanism other than natural selection. But modern theorists have certainly had success explaining the evolution of language using only the known mechanisms of natural selection.
*cough* Well, technically, we did. Scroll down to 2004. Of course, a few canisters of nerve gas weren't really what most people were expecting out of the WMDs, but technically, they were there, and nerve gas counts as a WMD. In fact, sarin was one WMD that Iraq had specifically been told to destroy.
I remember the day these were found. I happened to look at foxnews.com that day, because I was curious what they were saying about the war. And the sarin was on the front page. I couldn't find a *single reference* to it anywhere on CNN, even with a search. I'm not saying that Fox News isn't biased (because that would be a ridiculous thing to say), but it made me wary of CNN as well. I'm not sure I believe wholeheartedly in the whole liberal media bias thing, but I definitely take everything from BOTH sides with a bigger grain of salt now.
You don't seem to understand some of the basic concepts of evolution.
We DIDN'T evolve from apes, at least not modern apes. We and apes have common ancestors from which we both evolved separately. The chimp isn't your grandpa, he's your cousin, in other words. We can trace back several species - even multiple genuses of humans before we get back to where we would have joined up with chimps and gorillas evolutionarily. Gorillas, for instance, did not come from Australopithecus Afarensis, but we did. Our common ancestor is somewhere back before Australopithecus. And notice that, no, there aren't those anymore.
Not that one species can't evolve from another and both still exist. What if a group of, say, tropical mountain goats moves to a different mountain range, one that's not tropical? They'll either die, or adapt to the different climate. A hundred thousand years later, they may no longer be able to mate with the tropical goats, nor survive in the tropics. But the tropical goats are still there in the tropics, doing just fine.
OMG, if people can come to my town anytime without my knowledge, can they dig up my fossils? Buy out all the furniture at Nook's?
I can just see me now, obsessively getting up an hour early just so I can beat everyone else in the whole world to my town each morning. This could be very bad.
What's wrong with those Brits? Why, at MY college, NONE of the lab computers had Internet Explorer OR Office installed on them! They all ran Unix (still do, AFAIK, this was ~5 years ago), and we LIKED it!
My husband does the same thing. Especially with the nice Google search in the browser now - for instance, he just puts in "amortization calculator" rather than bookmarking his favorite one b/c he knows it's one of the first google hits for that search.
The state of Missouri is split down the middle - the Kansas City side is pop and the St Louis side is soda. What's worse, many people in St Louis don't even know what you're talking about when you say "pop" - I lived there during jr high, and sometimes people thought I meant popcorn, or just gave me a blank stare. I grew up in KC; when we moved to StL I *had* to switch to soda since pop is unintelligible there. Then we moved back to KC, and since soda is at least understood there (just less common) I never thought to switch back.
Now my husband (who is from Denver) is on an active campaign to switch me back to pop. It helps that we live in pop country now (Michigan), but it's hard to switch back.
Look at Midwest Express as an example... extra wide seats on every flight and you get 1 or 2 hot cookies. Used to be that you only got the cookie on flights out of Milwaukee, but now you get them on inbound flights too.
They've definitely decreased their service since 9/11. I flew them almost exclusively in college (1997-2002) because they were the cheapest nonstop from Boston to Kansas City. Not just warm cookies on every flight - when they brought the meal (which every flight over about 2 hours had), it was nice food (I remember chicken with artichoke hearts once) with real silverware and glass salt and pepper shakers - PLUS free wine (for those old enough, which was not me). The last time I flew with them they had none of this, save the cookies. I think they got rid of the nice meals when they changed from Midwest Express to Midwest Airlines in about 2002.
That's just a basic difference in how Apple and Microsoft approach marketing. Apple likes to keep everything tightly under wraps so that it can get a big reaction when it finally unveils it all the week/month before it ships. The things they did release about Leopard at this developer's conference are mostly things that developers will want to know about so that they can plan accordingly for their 10.5-compatible apps. But generally, Apple doesn't like to play its cards until it has to, so that everything it does has maximum immediate impact.
Microsoft, on the other hand, likes to make grand announcements long before the announced product is even in production. They want to be sure and build up anticipation so that later, when they cut a few features here and there, people will still have heard so much about the forthcoming product that they'll already have it stuck in their heads as something they need. Sure, they're vocal about what Vista "will be like," but that keeps changing.
The real question is whether this marketing strategy will continue to hold up now that Apple is making bigger and bigger headline with every surprise Steve pulls out of his magic turtleneck. Which means that his pokes at MS get more and more coverage as well.
What the father couldn't be the one to do the taste test, if the breast milk is in bottles? Do you get all squeamish every time you swallow that nasty saliva in your mouth? Or - eeeeeewwwww - the saliva in another person's mouth? (Insert generic slashdot joke about poster never having kissed a girl.) At least his is a "bodily fluid" that was created for the express purpose of another being drinking it.
Actually, you haven't noticed any legitimate emails from Yahoo getting tossed as spam, have you? (Just curious, I've emailed my dad three times in a row with no response, even though he's forwarded me stuff in between, and he's usually quick to respond, so I'm worried Hotmail is tagging emails from Yahoo addresses or something.)
I think I've confused Yahoo by applying for a mortgage. So I've been getting lots of legitimate mortgage and real estate-related emails, and it's been starting to let through a few related spams as well.
Other than that, I haven't been getting any more stray spam than usual. Maybe once a week I'll get one (that's not mortgage-related) that the filter misses.
Then there are the ones that go to email lists that I have filtered to other boxes besides Inbox... Since you can't pick when the spam filter works, it always works AFTER all your others, and so I get all of these. *sigh*
Slashdot Mirror
I think that would require Infinium to have employees beyond its CEO.
Ok, so some people claim that they don't see my sig because they have them turned off... But you HAVE one. Why would you turn them off and yet have one yourself?
I dunno, I can't read a word of all this legalese. But it sure sounds official; I bet judges will eat it up.
Congratulations, you're using a social networking site! They're not all MySpace, you know.
If you think that Bush and his cronies invented the term WMD, perhaps you should look up the history of the term. Of course it's obviously been used by them to scare up images of nuclear weapons even when it doesn't only mean that, but they were far from the first to use it to describe biological or chemical weapons.
If you read my posts, you'd see that my point was that SOME media outlets reported the story, and SOME didn't. Which means that SOME people heard about the story, and SOME didn't. It doesn't require anyone being clairvoyant - just looking at the right news source on the right day. I'm sure that it's entirely possible that 50% of those polled get their news from some other source than CNN.com, and that it was reported more widely than only at foxnews.com.
b) Notice that the person who made religion the issue was the guy who did the shooting. HE was the one who declared himself to be an American Muslim who was angry at Israel before shooting a bunch of Jews. Many news outlets reported the facts of the story, which included this statement. The statement strongly implies, if not outright announces, that the attack was religiously motivated. CNN, by not reporting this part of the story, tried to remove religion as an issue in a tragic episode where it clearly *was* the issue. That's just as bad as making it the issue when it's not.
Honestly, I haven't searched CNN for later stories. All I know is that on the day they were found, there was no mention of them at all when at least one other news outlet did mention them. I also didn't say that we found enough to justify the war - in fact, if you'll read my post I implied the opposite. Just that, technically, we did find some, so people aren't that stupid for telling a pollster that we did.
Did I ever say that they did? The OP (and others I've run into) used the fact that X% of Americans believe we found WMDs as evidence of American stupidity. All I'm saying is that, technically, we DID find WMDs, so it's not a stupid thing to say in a poll. Just because you belive we found them doesn't mean you think we found enough to justify war, or that you think we found enough to be a danger, or anything else. Just that, technically, we did find them, so if that's as far as the poll goes, it doesn't tell you anything about the stupidity of respondents or their political leanings or feelings about the war.
Well, Wikipedia disagrees. However, I do agree that there is a huge difference between most nuclear and biological/chemical weapons, so it is a bit misleading to lump them all together.
A more recent example - when that guy went on a shooting spree in the Jewish center in Seattle. The Jerusalem Post, BBC, and Fox News all quoted him as saying "I am an American Muslim and I am angry at Israel" before shooting. The CNN article didn't use the word "Muslim" once. Because, you know, mentioning that one Muslim did a bad thing is too terribly un-PC and could make someone somewhere hate ALL Muslims.
You can hear a reference to this in this speech by evolutionary psychologist Steven Pinker. He talks about Chomsky's influence on him starting around 1H 10 min into the talk. He refers to evolution around 1:19.
Kind of odd that you're arguing this after reading something by a man whose own theories run counter to general evolutionary theory. :)
*cough* Well, technically, we did. Scroll down to 2004. Of course, a few canisters of nerve gas weren't really what most people were expecting out of the WMDs, but technically, they were there, and nerve gas counts as a WMD. In fact, sarin was one WMD that Iraq had specifically been told to destroy.
I remember the day these were found. I happened to look at foxnews.com that day, because I was curious what they were saying about the war. And the sarin was on the front page. I couldn't find a *single reference* to it anywhere on CNN, even with a search. I'm not saying that Fox News isn't biased (because that would be a ridiculous thing to say), but it made me wary of CNN as well. I'm not sure I believe wholeheartedly in the whole liberal media bias thing, but I definitely take everything from BOTH sides with a bigger grain of salt now.
We DIDN'T evolve from apes, at least not modern apes. We and apes have common ancestors from which we both evolved separately. The chimp isn't your grandpa, he's your cousin, in other words. We can trace back several species - even multiple genuses of humans before we get back to where we would have joined up with chimps and gorillas evolutionarily. Gorillas, for instance, did not come from Australopithecus Afarensis, but we did. Our common ancestor is somewhere back before Australopithecus. And notice that, no, there aren't those anymore.
Not that one species can't evolve from another and both still exist. What if a group of, say, tropical mountain goats moves to a different mountain range, one that's not tropical? They'll either die, or adapt to the different climate. A hundred thousand years later, they may no longer be able to mate with the tropical goats, nor survive in the tropics. But the tropical goats are still there in the tropics, doing just fine.
I can just see me now, obsessively getting up an hour early just so I can beat everyone else in the whole world to my town each morning. This could be very bad.
What's wrong with those Brits? Why, at MY college, NONE of the lab computers had Internet Explorer OR Office installed on them! They all ran Unix (still do, AFAIK, this was ~5 years ago), and we LIKED it!
My husband does the same thing. Especially with the nice Google search in the browser now - for instance, he just puts in "amortization calculator" rather than bookmarking his favorite one b/c he knows it's one of the first google hits for that search.
Now my husband (who is from Denver) is on an active campaign to switch me back to pop. It helps that we live in pop country now (Michigan), but it's hard to switch back.
You spelled it wrong. Take a look at their logo; it's PeTA. "Ethical" is obviously the least important part of their operations.
LOL. Sorry. This bodily fluid...
They've definitely decreased their service since 9/11. I flew them almost exclusively in college (1997-2002) because they were the cheapest nonstop from Boston to Kansas City. Not just warm cookies on every flight - when they brought the meal (which every flight over about 2 hours had), it was nice food (I remember chicken with artichoke hearts once) with real silverware and glass salt and pepper shakers - PLUS free wine (for those old enough, which was not me). The last time I flew with them they had none of this, save the cookies. I think they got rid of the nice meals when they changed from Midwest Express to Midwest Airlines in about 2002.
Microsoft, on the other hand, likes to make grand announcements long before the announced product is even in production. They want to be sure and build up anticipation so that later, when they cut a few features here and there, people will still have heard so much about the forthcoming product that they'll already have it stuck in their heads as something they need. Sure, they're vocal about what Vista "will be like," but that keeps changing.
The real question is whether this marketing strategy will continue to hold up now that Apple is making bigger and bigger headline with every surprise Steve pulls out of his magic turtleneck. Which means that his pokes at MS get more and more coverage as well.
What the father couldn't be the one to do the taste test, if the breast milk is in bottles? Do you get all squeamish every time you swallow that nasty saliva in your mouth? Or - eeeeeewwwww - the saliva in another person's mouth? (Insert generic slashdot joke about poster never having kissed a girl.) At least his is a "bodily fluid" that was created for the express purpose of another being drinking it.
I even put in my sig that I'm a girl, and people are still in denial.
I think I've confused Yahoo by applying for a mortgage. So I've been getting lots of legitimate mortgage and real estate-related emails, and it's been starting to let through a few related spams as well.
Other than that, I haven't been getting any more stray spam than usual. Maybe once a week I'll get one (that's not mortgage-related) that the filter misses.
Then there are the ones that go to email lists that I have filtered to other boxes besides Inbox... Since you can't pick when the spam filter works, it always works AFTER all your others, and so I get all of these. *sigh*