I would say if the show generates any interest in science that would be a good thing. However, people who go into forensics based on their experience with CSI might lose interest pretty quick.
I think of Jurassic Park where the little girl is staring at the computer with some 3D file system view and says, "This is a UNIX system, I know this" and I realize that most shows are not very accurate. I imagine CSI's view of forensics is about as accurate as Jurassic Park's snapshot of UNIX. But it is entertaining anyway.
What kind of sick individual would look up these pictures anyway? It happened! That should be enough for any moral individual to condemn the actions. Anyone who has to see for themselves is either perverse or otherwise sick.
Are people looking for evidence that President Bush was behind it all? Obviously, most people don't think that he was personally responsible for what happened...and he was already reelected so why should the Bush administration care if the pictures are shown? The only thing it hurts at this point is the troops because it fuels the fire of our enemies.
There are definitely more PhD and educated types in cities. However, I would have to say that a fairly high percentage of city dwellers are uneducated as well.
I would be interested to know what percentage of PhD's got their doctorates in fields with no earning potential outside of the University. I think a lot of the left-leaning has to do with field of study. I went to graduate school in Champaign, IL. There is a push for a graduate employees union but it tends to be among liberal arts majors for the most part. Most of my engineering buddies had no interest is such a thing.
Certainly, the base of the democratic party is among these types of educated people. They are intelligent people who believe that all fields of study are created equal and should be compensated and funded equally. I am not saying that is wrong but it certainly fuels some of the fire against the corporate right.
Read more about it in this Indimedia article: The truth about "thetruthaboutiraq.org".
This site is stupid. It claims that Steven Moore is linked to the GOP. So what? Who cares? That does not automatically translate to mean that Steven Moore is lying. The site provides no evidence to back that up.
There are a lot of Republicans in Ohio specifically trying to discourage people from voting:
I am sorry. I guess I should rephrase my statement.
There are not any serious republicans trying to discourage ELIGIBLE people from voting. Keeping felons, illegal aliens, non-citizens, dead people, double voters, Mary Poppins, and the Easter Bunny from voting is a civic responsibility. Do you want your vote cancelled by somebody who by law is not allowed to vote?
Or is this just a "Republicans would never encourage people to vote, therefore it's those lousy Democrats that are behind it" thing?
I don't think any serious republican wants to discourage people to vote.
That being said, I don't think anyone SHOULD vote if they are not informed. And if their sole source of information is MTV or Fox News or CNN or CBS or NBC or ABC or any newspaper or/., then I think they ought to stay home on election day. Voters should be informed on the issues and the candidates. Campaigns that only encourage voting should instead be encouraging research and involvement in civil affairs. Voting is a natural consequence.
Though people do not like it when they are forced into agreeing with someone else's religious creed by the state... Though, if you were a Christian in a Muslim country, you wouldn't mind being forced to state your muslim beliefs, right?
First of all, nobody would be "forced" to do anything. If there were prayer in public school, students would have every right to sit out. But my point isn't about prayer in public school. It is about teachers not being able to express their religious view to students. Any other opinion is aloud in school but if one steps over the "religion line" then they can be fired. And don't tell me that hasn't happened.
What is with people on/. and their insults if they don't agree with your position. Can't you people just discuss the issues and not resort to name calling? It adds nothing to the conversation although the moderators seem to give out points for it.
The point was, wars are not conducted for moral justification, that justification is added post fact.
Power struggle? What power exactly did the colonists have? They were not looking to take over the English government. They just wanted to be represented. They wanted to have some say in their laws. The American Revolution was absolutely morally justified BEFORE the war. The Declaration of Independence was written before the war.
There are reasons sometimes to go to war. Peace isn't as simple as you make it out to be. In order for peace to work, BOTH sides have to be agreeable and work out their differences. Do you think we can ever have peace with Islamic extremists?
I completely agree that Bush spending is out of control. I think the defense spending is mostly necessary and anything spent on homeland security. But faith based initiatives are stupid. Church groups should easily be able to get funding from their membership as mine does.
That being said, where would the economy be if there were no tax cuts?
The US Constitution is the embodiment of liberalism, and as much as you fascists hate it, it's the law of the land.
This is obviously flamebait but I will answer it. First of all I am anything but a fascist. I do believe the modern liberal INTERPRETATION of the constitution is far from what the drafters had in mind. One could argue either way. But vague stupid arguments and insults don't a point make.
Lets take freedom of religion as an example. Over time this has been rewritten in the minds of the people and in the interpretation of the constitution to mean separation of church and state. Now, it is not allowed to have prayer in public schools or to even express a belief in God. However, the constitution says "Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." It seems like something has changed in our interpretation.
It is interesting that liberals will fight like mad to allow pornography in libraries but any mention of religion (also protected by the constitution) in public places is somehow illegal and not protected by the constitution.
Lets get some things straight. There's never been a "good" war in the history of the world that didn't *first* start because of a power struggle or a politician's false pretense and was *later* justified by pointing to all the good it did.
So the American Revolutionary war was based on false pretenses? My history lessons tell me that there was some pretty unfair treatment of the colonies by the British. Have you ever read the declaration of independence? They tried diplomacy and when it failed, they fought for their freedom.
That's silly. The death count is constantly overreported. Every article about military firefights ends with a quote from some official saying how the Americans attacked mostly women, children, and the elderly
Exactly! I read a story yesterday about this report and they actually said that the vast majority of the deaths were women and children. That is what tipped me off to conclude that the story was a load of crap. Does anyone honestly think that we would deliberatly attack women and children ONLY? If we were not attacking them deliberately, then why the hell would the vast majority of deaths be women and children? The polls in Iraq clearly show that Iraqis don't want Americans over there. What better way to get them to leave then to undermine their efforts by claiming that they are targeting civilians.
The problem with liberals is that they are much more inclined to believe the enemies of the USA than they are to believe the leaders of the country or even the soldiers that are over there fighting. This is like Howard Dean taking the terrorists commnets after the attack in Spain and saying it is the Presidents fault of the war in Iraq. Spain backing out of Iraq was absolutely the WORST thing that could have happened. All it did was give these morons more reason to hold people hostage, threaten beheadings, and ochestrate more attacks.
If the President wasn't a war-mongerer like you all say he is, then the extremists-to-be in the middle east would still be seething waiting for an opportunity. Bush has forced them to take a side....a side that they probably would eventually take if left alone anyway. The only reason there is more terrorism in the world now is because somebody is standing up and saying we are not going to sit here and take this crap anymore.
Considering that I mentioned my wife that would be a pretty good assumption. But it is a dumb argument because she is more strongly opposed to abortion than I am. She has carried a baby full-term and we are well aware of what pregnancy does to the body. She has also been through 3 miscarriages.
"Just have the kid." It sounds so simple, but has so much responsibility. And if you mess up, you mess up big.
What a cop out! You people make the argument that abortion is ok just because there is ONLY a potential that the kid will grow into a human. But if there is only a potential that you will screw up, you use it as an argument that you should have an abortion.
f you want to adopt, go grab one of the unwanted kids from one of the orphanages in any 3rd world country. Don't ask me to have a baby for you. Geez. And if you feel that strongly about it, maybe you should donate money to hunger relief.
It isn't as easy as you make it sound. China,for instance, requires that both partners have to be over 30 so we would have to wait 4 years before we could even try. Other countries have similar rules. I also donate a substantial portion of my income to charity though I don't know what that has to do with abortion or adoption.
What's your point with this beyond an emotional appeal? Does a heartbeat make one human?
No, the DNA makes the child human. The heartbeat indicates life the beginning of a life. If there are no defects in the DNA and if a few other things happen correctly, the child WILL grow into a human child. It isn't all about potential. This glob of cells as you call it IS a human. It merely cannot survive on its own outside the womb. To set some arbitrary point at which it becomes a child is impossible to do. You seem to draw the line at after the second trimester so at 180 days it is a child and at 179 days it is a glob of cells.
But outcasting a child to a stranger's hands can?
I believe it is absolutely justified. It isn't like you are dumping the child on total strangers. These total strangers WANT a child. In most cases, they were not able to have a child by themselves. Obviously some research on the adopting couple should be done and standards need to be set. I know several adoptive parents who are VERY good parents and love their adopted children as if they were birth children.
Therefore, despite its emotionally-divisive nature and negative social connotations, the vast majority of abortions are not morally wrong.
I will agree to disagree on this one. I feel that most abortions are morally wrong. Whether the fetus has moral status is a matter of opinion or belief. My belief and conviction point me in that direction. Proving otherwise is like trying to prove that God exists.
I'll assume for the sake of the argument, that you mean voluntary abortions and not instances of rape, incest, or the mother's health. Regardless, that's a pretty convient way for you to frame the whole issue, isn't it?
I was replying to the previous poster who indicated that abortion is the responsible thing to do. I do believe there are cases that abortion should be an option (we could have a debate about that) but to say that abortion is responsible just because the child, if kept, will have a hard life is just stupid. Even if they did keep the child, there are many examples of people born into harsh circumstances that became great people.
Furthermore, exactly what responsibilities do I have to a mass of cells on my body?
My wife recently had a 6 week miscarriage. At six weeks you can hear a heartbeat. To call it a mass of cells is a stupid argument. It is a potential human child. If given the opportunity to grow, it will not turn into a mole or a fingernail. It will turn into a child.
Yeah! Those dirty whores!
Look, all I am saying is people should take responsibility for their actions. Killing a potential human being because you don't want it or you are afraid of what other people might think or because you are worried about your career cannot be justified.
At least abortion is a well reasoned choice, where you take responsibility for your own action when it matters: before you make a mistake that leads to years of easy-to-measure human suffering.
So having an abortion is taking responsibility for your actions? If you have sex (and we all know that sex can lead to pregnancy) then taking responsibility for your actions is living with the consequence of those actions. Abortion is nothing more than a way to avoid responsibility.
Seriously people, there are MANY good people who are on waiting lists to ADOPT healthy children. Taking responsibility would be to have the baby and giving it up for adoption. Then maybe the person will think twice before getting pregnant again.
You are right. There is a lot of evidence that Bush could have done something. But there is also a lot more evidence that Clinton (and your new favorite VP) could have done something.
You are speculating that Gore would have done differently. Gore is just a pissed off has been.
Truly, President Bush has stolen the symbolism and body language of religion and used it to disguise the most radical effort in American history to take what rightfully belongs to the American people, and give as much of it as possible to the already wealthy and privileged
I especially liked this comment. He makes it sound as though the wealthy peoples money rightfully belongs to all Americans. This is the major issue I take with democrats. They are great at promising other people's money and making it sound like it is the noble thing to do. They even quote scripture as Kerry did during the debates. Nowhere has Jesus said, "Take from the rich and give to the poor." Rather he challenged the rich man to sell all that he had and follow him. It should be a CHOICE!!! And if Kerry was so righteous he might not own 5 mansions and a private jet...
What this all boils down to is that democrats don't agree with Bush's domestic policies so they are irresponsibly attacking his foreign policy in the middle of a war.
"The fact that we were so caught with our pants down on 9/11 is completely Bush's fault."
So not going after Osama after the first world trade center bombing was Bush's fault too I suppose?
What exactly should the President (who had only been in office for 8 months) have done to stop the attacks? Do you honestly believe that Gore or Kerry would have done anything differently before 9/11? We have too many armchair quarterbacks in this country. The problem is most of them (like Kerry) offer no alternative but only say, he screwed up and I would have done it differently.
Slashdot Mirror
I think of Jurassic Park where the little girl is staring at the computer with some 3D file system view and says, "This is a UNIX system, I know this" and I realize that most shows are not very accurate. I imagine CSI's view of forensics is about as accurate as Jurassic Park's snapshot of UNIX. But it is entertaining anyway.
Are people looking for evidence that President Bush was behind it all? Obviously, most people don't think that he was personally responsible for what happened...and he was already reelected so why should the Bush administration care if the pictures are shown? The only thing it hurts at this point is the troops because it fuels the fire of our enemies.
I would be interested to know what percentage of PhD's got their doctorates in fields with no earning potential outside of the University. I think a lot of the left-leaning has to do with field of study. I went to graduate school in Champaign, IL. There is a push for a graduate employees union but it tends to be among liberal arts majors for the most part. Most of my engineering buddies had no interest is such a thing.
Certainly, the base of the democratic party is among these types of educated people. They are intelligent people who believe that all fields of study are created equal and should be compensated and funded equally. I am not saying that is wrong but it certainly fuels some of the fire against the corporate right.
This site is stupid. It claims that Steven Moore is linked to the GOP. So what? Who cares? That does not automatically translate to mean that Steven Moore is lying. The site provides no evidence to back that up.
I am sorry. I guess I should rephrase my statement.
There are not any serious republicans trying to discourage ELIGIBLE people from voting. Keeping felons, illegal aliens, non-citizens, dead people, double voters, Mary Poppins, and the Easter Bunny from voting is a civic responsibility. Do you want your vote cancelled by somebody who by law is not allowed to vote?
I don't think any serious republican wants to discourage people to vote.
That being said, I don't think anyone SHOULD vote if they are not informed. And if their sole source of information is MTV or Fox News or CNN or CBS or NBC or ABC or any newspaper or /., then I think they ought to stay home on election day. Voters should be informed on the issues and the candidates. Campaigns that only encourage voting should instead be encouraging research and involvement in civil affairs. Voting is a natural consequence.
Given that the Red Sox won the world series, I think this might be the year to break such trends....If only the Cubs could have won too...
First of all, nobody would be "forced" to do anything. If there were prayer in public school, students would have every right to sit out. But my point isn't about prayer in public school. It is about teachers not being able to express their religious view to students. Any other opinion is aloud in school but if one steps over the "religion line" then they can be fired. And don't tell me that hasn't happened.
What is with people on /. and their insults if they don't agree with your position. Can't you people just discuss the issues and not resort to name calling? It adds nothing to the conversation although the moderators seem to give out points for it.
Power struggle? What power exactly did the colonists have? They were not looking to take over the English government. They just wanted to be represented. They wanted to have some say in their laws. The American Revolution was absolutely morally justified BEFORE the war. The Declaration of Independence was written before the war.
There are reasons sometimes to go to war. Peace isn't as simple as you make it out to be. In order for peace to work, BOTH sides have to be agreeable and work out their differences. Do you think we can ever have peace with Islamic extremists?
It's the economy
I completely agree that Bush spending is out of control. I think the defense spending is mostly necessary and anything spent on homeland security. But faith based initiatives are stupid. Church groups should easily be able to get funding from their membership as mine does.
That being said, where would the economy be if there were no tax cuts?
This is obviously flamebait but I will answer it. First of all I am anything but a fascist. I do believe the modern liberal INTERPRETATION of the constitution is far from what the drafters had in mind. One could argue either way. But vague stupid arguments and insults don't a point make.
Lets take freedom of religion as an example. Over time this has been rewritten in the minds of the people and in the interpretation of the constitution to mean separation of church and state. Now, it is not allowed to have prayer in public schools or to even express a belief in God. However, the constitution says "Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." It seems like something has changed in our interpretation.
It is interesting that liberals will fight like mad to allow pornography in libraries but any mention of religion (also protected by the constitution) in public places is somehow illegal and not protected by the constitution.
So the American Revolutionary war was based on false pretenses? My history lessons tell me that there was some pretty unfair treatment of the colonies by the British. Have you ever read the declaration of independence? They tried diplomacy and when it failed, they fought for their freedom.
Exactly! I read a story yesterday about this report and they actually said that the vast majority of the deaths were women and children. That is what tipped me off to conclude that the story was a load of crap. Does anyone honestly think that we would deliberatly attack women and children ONLY? If we were not attacking them deliberately, then why the hell would the vast majority of deaths be women and children? The polls in Iraq clearly show that Iraqis don't want Americans over there. What better way to get them to leave then to undermine their efforts by claiming that they are targeting civilians.
The problem with liberals is that they are much more inclined to believe the enemies of the USA than they are to believe the leaders of the country or even the soldiers that are over there fighting. This is like Howard Dean taking the terrorists commnets after the attack in Spain and saying it is the Presidents fault of the war in Iraq. Spain backing out of Iraq was absolutely the WORST thing that could have happened. All it did was give these morons more reason to hold people hostage, threaten beheadings, and ochestrate more attacks.
If the President wasn't a war-mongerer like you all say he is, then the extremists-to-be in the middle east would still be seething waiting for an opportunity. Bush has forced them to take a side....a side that they probably would eventually take if left alone anyway. The only reason there is more terrorism in the world now is because somebody is standing up and saying we are not going to sit here and take this crap anymore.
Flame away!
Considering that I mentioned my wife that would be a pretty good assumption. But it is a dumb argument because she is more strongly opposed to abortion than I am. She has carried a baby full-term and we are well aware of what pregnancy does to the body. She has also been through 3 miscarriages.
"Just have the kid." It sounds so simple, but has so much responsibility. And if you mess up, you mess up big.
What a cop out! You people make the argument that abortion is ok just because there is ONLY a potential that the kid will grow into a human. But if there is only a potential that you will screw up, you use it as an argument that you should have an abortion.
f you want to adopt, go grab one of the unwanted kids from one of the orphanages in any 3rd world country. Don't ask me to have a baby for you. Geez. And if you feel that strongly about it, maybe you should donate money to hunger relief.
It isn't as easy as you make it sound. China,for instance, requires that both partners have to be over 30 so we would have to wait 4 years before we could even try. Other countries have similar rules. I also donate a substantial portion of my income to charity though I don't know what that has to do with abortion or adoption.
No, the DNA makes the child human. The heartbeat indicates life the beginning of a life. If there are no defects in the DNA and if a few other things happen correctly, the child WILL grow into a human child. It isn't all about potential. This glob of cells as you call it IS a human. It merely cannot survive on its own outside the womb. To set some arbitrary point at which it becomes a child is impossible to do. You seem to draw the line at after the second trimester so at 180 days it is a child and at 179 days it is a glob of cells.
But outcasting a child to a stranger's hands can?
I believe it is absolutely justified. It isn't like you are dumping the child on total strangers. These total strangers WANT a child. In most cases, they were not able to have a child by themselves. Obviously some research on the adopting couple should be done and standards need to be set. I know several adoptive parents who are VERY good parents and love their adopted children as if they were birth children.
Therefore, despite its emotionally-divisive nature and negative social connotations, the vast majority of abortions are not morally wrong.
I will agree to disagree on this one. I feel that most abortions are morally wrong. Whether the fetus has moral status is a matter of opinion or belief. My belief and conviction point me in that direction. Proving otherwise is like trying to prove that God exists.
I was replying to the previous poster who indicated that abortion is the responsible thing to do. I do believe there are cases that abortion should be an option (we could have a debate about that) but to say that abortion is responsible just because the child, if kept, will have a hard life is just stupid. Even if they did keep the child, there are many examples of people born into harsh circumstances that became great people.
Furthermore, exactly what responsibilities do I have to a mass of cells on my body?
My wife recently had a 6 week miscarriage. At six weeks you can hear a heartbeat. To call it a mass of cells is a stupid argument. It is a potential human child. If given the opportunity to grow, it will not turn into a mole or a fingernail. It will turn into a child.
Yeah! Those dirty whores!
Look, all I am saying is people should take responsibility for their actions. Killing a potential human being because you don't want it or you are afraid of what other people might think or because you are worried about your career cannot be justified.
So having an abortion is taking responsibility for your actions? If you have sex (and we all know that sex can lead to pregnancy) then taking responsibility for your actions is living with the consequence of those actions. Abortion is nothing more than a way to avoid responsibility.
Seriously people, there are MANY good people who are on waiting lists to ADOPT healthy children. Taking responsibility would be to have the baby and giving it up for adoption. Then maybe the person will think twice before getting pregnant again.
You are speculating that Gore would have done differently. Gore is just a pissed off has been.
Truly, President Bush has stolen the symbolism and body language of religion and used it to disguise the most radical effort in American history to take what rightfully belongs to the American people, and give as much of it as possible to the already wealthy and privileged
I especially liked this comment. He makes it sound as though the wealthy peoples money rightfully belongs to all Americans. This is the major issue I take with democrats. They are great at promising other people's money and making it sound like it is the noble thing to do. They even quote scripture as Kerry did during the debates. Nowhere has Jesus said, "Take from the rich and give to the poor." Rather he challenged the rich man to sell all that he had and follow him. It should be a CHOICE!!! And if Kerry was so righteous he might not own 5 mansions and a private jet...
What this all boils down to is that democrats don't agree with Bush's domestic policies so they are irresponsibly attacking his foreign policy in the middle of a war.
"The fact that we were so caught with our pants down on 9/11 is completely Bush's fault." So not going after Osama after the first world trade center bombing was Bush's fault too I suppose? What exactly should the President (who had only been in office for 8 months) have done to stop the attacks? Do you honestly believe that Gore or Kerry would have done anything differently before 9/11? We have too many armchair quarterbacks in this country. The problem is most of them (like Kerry) offer no alternative but only say, he screwed up and I would have done it differently.