I found the story a bit confusing. If the climate was so dry that corpses didn't decompose, how was it wet enough to support a human population? Why weren't the corpses buried or burned in the first place? Were they burying the corpses in shallow graves and having them re-emerge for some reason?
Perhaps the inclination to answer "true" is related how much information you think the questioner has. If the questioner has a photo of the subject, it is likely the questioner has done more research on the subject and knows the right answer. If the questioner just gives you a typed name, then it seems more likely the questioner just pulled a name out of memory and doesn't know much about the subjects current status.
And another downgrade - this one two days after the post. I've seen other conservative commenters question that. Usually posts get all their mods on the day they're made, but it isn't unusual for a conservative post to get down mods several days later.
Really it comes down to this: you won't be solving any calculus problems as a programmer. What you'll gain are new ways of looking at problems and solutions, and a lot of practice on skills that you won't otherwise practice but that you'll want to understand at an intuitive level.
The topics I learned in calculus, trig, and geometry have helped very little in the programming I've had to do. They have helped though. Some examples:
1. Any time I have to work with performance of a system, the concept of "Big Oh" is in my mind. The math is based on stuff I learned in Algebra I with maybe a smidgen of Algebra 2. But if I had stopped at those classes I would struggle. But having done calculus, physics, diffy Q, etc., I can do the Big Oh stuff almost intuitively. I can focus on the problem rather than taking time to figure out the math.
2. Concepts like independent variables - someone mentioned orthogonality - are helpful. You don't actually sit down and solve math equations, but you use the concepts to understand and write requirements. You use them to understand how to organize your code.
3. If you want to understand how the square root is calculated by your computer, you'll need some calculus. You probably won't need to know that, but knowing it might help you solve another problem because you can use similar ideas.
The proper response to a whiny or stupid post is to point out why it is dishonest, whiny, or stupid. Mod downs should be used for things that are "off-topic", "flamebait", "troll"ing, or if something is rated highly and shouldn't be ("overrated"). The fact that you disagree with something because you think it is whiny or stupid is not a good reason to down-mod. (I'll agree that you should down-mod clearly dishonest stuff - but it has to be really really clear that the person is lying on purpose rather than just not realizing he has wrong information).
It used to be that I would see conservative and liberal posts both get mostly fair mods with occassional deviations. Now I see more and more conservative posts getting unfair mod downs.
It doesn't always work that way, but I'm pleasantly surprised this time. I've starting setting a low threshold when browsing political threads so that I don't miss the insightful comments.
This got modded flamebait while the post it responded to is +1. I've been noticing this recently - posts that seem to come from conservatives are getting down-modded a lot. I'm wishing I had done some meta-moderating. When I had the chance. I'm not getting the invitations to do so - perhaps because I've recently been getting negative mods for conservative comments.
Given the memory issues and what you're saying about once you learn something through repetition it sticks, I would recommend you carefully pick an programming language, platform, and type of programmer that is less likely to change quickly and less likely to disappear. Perhaps the Oracle database's procedural SQL language would be a good choice. Choose C/C++ rather than Python. Look carefully at how the language is used. Java doesn't change much, but the programmer frameworks used with Java change constantly.
I'm saying the 60 vote rule, the only rule in question, was invented by the Democrats. The use of filibuster has been increasing for a long time. I agree that it is overused. It ought to require more than a threat - the majority should have the guts to force the other party to stand up and talk. If they did that it would focus national attention on the subject and the party with the less popular view would be pressured to give in.
But the current state is not the all the fault of the Republicans. Yes, the Republicans let the Democrats get away with too many filibusters when the Republicans had control. And yes the Republicans used the filibuster too much. But the Democrats have also let the Republicans get away with too many filibusters and the Democrats have also used the filibuster too much. Both parties are guilty.
The filibuster is a good thing, but in its current form it has many problems.
Thank you, came here to say the same thing. There's no rule that says it takes 60 votes to pass the senate, that's a GOP invention.
It was the Democrats' invention.
According to Wikipedia, "Finally, in 1975 the Democratic-controlled Senate[5] revised its cloture rule so that three-fifths of the senators sworn (usually 60 senators) could limit debate, except on votes to change Senate rules, which require two-thirds to invoke cloture." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_States_Senate
Conservatives are currently the ONLY civil libertarians left in government
Conservatives? You need to get specific, as currently the Republican party lays claim to that term and they are ANYTHING but "civil libertarians."
Tea-party conservatives, specifically. There would be a lot more people saying they support the tea-parties if the media hadn't worked so hard to portray the tea-parties as things they are not (like racist).
the mass of Democrats voting in lock-step.
Hilarious. The diversity of opinions in the Democratic party is one of the reasons they've had a hard time pushing past Republican stonewalling. If you want lock-step voting, look at the Republican party.
You've been watching too much liberal news, where Republican teamwork is always called "marching in lockstep" and Democratic teamwork is called "unity". It of course confuses you when you see Democratic teamwork called "marching in lockstep".
as long as it means less intrusive government
You will not see this from anyone currently in DC.
Ron Paul was a Republican. Rand Paul, I'm not sure if he is as strict as his father, is also a Republican. But you're right that there are very few elected in either party who stand by their claims to want limited government. This is why after 8 years of disappointment from GWB and the Republicans, the tea-party formed. We always knew the Democrats opposed freedom, but the Republicans betrayed us it was clear a new movement was needed.
consider picking for the other offices you vote for the most conservative candidate possible
Again, define "conservative." The most "conservative" candidates today seem to be religious fundamentalists who are all too happy to cater to corporate interests.
Religious fundamentalists tend to be the most pro-freedom these days because their freedoms are increasingly threatened (e.g. the HHS mandate). But there certainly are politicians who are religious fundamentalists and willing to cater to corporate interests on both sides (though the liberals will claim their religious beliefs aren't really religious)
for the candidates that at least say they want to reduce the power and scope of the federal government.
They at least "say" that, but then do so by attacking useful bits of the government in favor of the corporations stuffing money in their pockets.
It's a problem. How about if we all vote for politicians who say they'll reduce government until they all have to start saying it? Then we can vote of the politicians who do the best job of following through.
Today's conservatives believe for absolute freedom of corporations that that's it.
You're only slightly correct. There are some conservatives who act that way - and they tend to get the most funding and get elected. This is one of the reasons the tea-parties formed. The rank-and-file was sick and tired of sending politicians to Washington based on their promises to cut spending, only to have those politicians betray them.
So what happened, the media made every effort to discredit the tea-partiers, calling them names and making unreasonable accusations of racism. Was this because the media tend to be left-wing, or because the media is owned by corporations? I don't know, but either way the effects weren't pretty.
The rank-and-file conservatives are trying to get control of the party from the corporate sponsors. This is what separates them from the liberals. Liberals want their party to make the government and corporations one entity (oh you think you don't? the sad fact is the more power you give government, the more effort the industrialists will put into controlling that government, and they will succeed).
It isn't easy shrinking the government and wresting control from the corporations, but it would be nice if people who claim to be on our side would help us instead of constantly seeking to discredit us.
These all are related to foreigness, not to race. Conservatives have a long history of thinking America is great and foreign cultures and ideas aren't as good. Remember the comparisons of Kerry to the French? Was that about race too? Conservatives hate white people? When Obama gets called a communists, is that about race too? We hate him because he's part white (just like the Russians are white)?
Conservatives don't even make the connections you do. That's why were so often stunned by accusations of racism - we weren't even thinking about race!
The fact that when someone asks about a birth cirtificate, you immedately consider the race, and when someone questions a religion, you immediate think about race, and when someone questions a foreign anti-colonialist view, you immediately think about race, shows that you have race on your mind all the time. You group people by race. Conservatives don't. Conservatives group people by country (or by state if they're from Texas).
At this point, as crazy partisan as things have gotten, I'm pretty sure everyone in their right minds has already decided where they stand in the fall.
"in their right minds" is the key there. Most swing voters aren't paying attention yet. That's why the political ads will be so annoying. They're not trying to persuade thinking individuals - they're trying to persuade "independents".
Maybe that's the problem. Maybe you don't imagine. Not just being arrested, but how other people feel about such things.
I think we'd be a lot better off if other's feelings were given a little more imagination. Of course what a lot of people don't realize causes upset is somebody whose feelings are being disregarded.
You're saying I don't care about other people?? That really hurts. I do care. I can't believe you would say such a thing about me. You don't even know me!
The kid isn't being accused of breaking and entering. If he were it would be the athlete facing jail time (assuming the athlete took reasonable steps to defend himself).
You've got to shift your viewpoint a little if you want to understand what's going on around you. The idea that free speech is the most holy ideal is rubbish.
It is holy from the standpoint that no one should be forced to espouse a view they find repugnant. It is practical because once we start regulating speech the regulators will make it so we criticize them (it might hurt their feelings or upset the social order if the regulators were criticized).
This kid chose to reach out into a public place to harass and intimidate someone. If you allow people to be chased out of public light by intimidation and harassment then you wind up with less freedom, as your personal freedoms to pursue things like sports are hindered by those who would hide behind free speech.
If the athlete saw the tweet, it is because the athlete chose to participate in an extremely public forum. It's not like he was just walking around shopping. He was using a medium design to allow as many people as possible to communicate. If you're going to do that you have to expect some flames no matter who you are.
As for the larger question of freedom to walk around in public: someone instantly recognizable, or someone hounded by paparazzi might have case to make for restricting to what extent they should be protected in public from speech. That is indeed a difficult topic - but the answer there is not to put a blanket ban on all speech but to figure out a way to tailor the rules for only the difficult cases. The fact that Johnny Depp can't walk around without attracting a mob should not be the basis for regulating interactions between a lesser known athlete and a teenager.
In cases where an individual is really annoying, there are other ways for the public to handle it. For example, as a small business owner I could refuse to hire him. What? That's illegal discrimination? Well, at least I could refuse to sell him anything at my store! Wha..? That's illegal too! Well, I suppose I could tell everyone what a jerk he is because... oh yeah, we just made that illegal. Um well I suppose I could - oh H#ll, just arrest him. Why bother with social pressure when it's so much easier to send him to jail?
Slashdot Mirror
yep.
Also lots of cities so you'll never get bored.
Unless, of course, you find waiting in traffic boring. Or if you find overcrowding and pollution to be boring..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Flowers_Campaign
I found the story a bit confusing. If the climate was so dry that corpses didn't decompose, how was it wet enough to support a human population? Why weren't the corpses buried or burned in the first place? Were they burying the corpses in shallow graves and having them re-emerge for some reason?
Perhaps the inclination to answer "true" is related how much information you think the questioner has. If the questioner has a photo of the subject, it is likely the questioner has done more research on the subject and knows the right answer. If the questioner just gives you a typed name, then it seems more likely the questioner just pulled a name out of memory and doesn't know much about the subjects current status.
And another downgrade - this one two days after the post. I've seen other conservative commenters question that. Usually posts get all their mods on the day they're made, but it isn't unusual for a conservative post to get down mods several days later.
Really it comes down to this: you won't be solving any calculus problems as a programmer. What you'll gain are new ways of looking at problems and solutions, and a lot of practice on skills that you won't otherwise practice but that you'll want to understand at an intuitive level. The topics I learned in calculus, trig, and geometry have helped very little in the programming I've had to do. They have helped though. Some examples: 1. Any time I have to work with performance of a system, the concept of "Big Oh" is in my mind. The math is based on stuff I learned in Algebra I with maybe a smidgen of Algebra 2. But if I had stopped at those classes I would struggle. But having done calculus, physics, diffy Q, etc., I can do the Big Oh stuff almost intuitively. I can focus on the problem rather than taking time to figure out the math. 2. Concepts like independent variables - someone mentioned orthogonality - are helpful. You don't actually sit down and solve math equations, but you use the concepts to understand and write requirements. You use them to understand how to organize your code. 3. If you want to understand how the square root is calculated by your computer, you'll need some calculus. You probably won't need to know that, but knowing it might help you solve another problem because you can use similar ideas.
The proper response to a whiny or stupid post is to point out why it is dishonest, whiny, or stupid. Mod downs should be used for things that are "off-topic", "flamebait", "troll"ing, or if something is rated highly and shouldn't be ("overrated"). The fact that you disagree with something because you think it is whiny or stupid is not a good reason to down-mod. (I'll agree that you should down-mod clearly dishonest stuff - but it has to be really really clear that the person is lying on purpose rather than just not realizing he has wrong information). It used to be that I would see conservative and liberal posts both get mostly fair mods with occassional deviations. Now I see more and more conservative posts getting unfair mod downs.
It looks like we spoke too soon. The post now has two mod downs and only one mod up.
It doesn't always work that way, but I'm pleasantly surprised this time. I've starting setting a low threshold when browsing political threads so that I don't miss the insightful comments.
Yeah, his and Harry Reid's.
Party loyalist = useful idiot
This got modded flamebait while the post it responded to is +1. I've been noticing this recently - posts that seem to come from conservatives are getting down-modded a lot. I'm wishing I had done some meta-moderating. When I had the chance. I'm not getting the invitations to do so - perhaps because I've recently been getting negative mods for conservative comments.
Yeah, I know, this will be modded down too.
You mean like Obama college transcripts and Harry Reid's tax returns?
All Summer In A Day (Ray Bradbury).
Wow thanks. I had successfully repressed memories of that story and you just brought them up again.
You're right of course. It's an very painful story.
Given the memory issues and what you're saying about once you learn something through repetition it sticks, I would recommend you carefully pick an programming language, platform, and type of programmer that is less likely to change quickly and less likely to disappear. Perhaps the Oracle database's procedural SQL language would be a good choice. Choose C/C++ rather than Python. Look carefully at how the language is used. Java doesn't change much, but the programmer frameworks used with Java change constantly.
I'm saying the 60 vote rule, the only rule in question, was invented by the Democrats. The use of filibuster has been increasing for a long time. I agree that it is overused. It ought to require more than a threat - the majority should have the guts to force the other party to stand up and talk. If they did that it would focus national attention on the subject and the party with the less popular view would be pressured to give in.
But the current state is not the all the fault of the Republicans. Yes, the Republicans let the Democrats get away with too many filibusters when the Republicans had control. And yes the Republicans used the filibuster too much. But the Democrats have also let the Republicans get away with too many filibusters and the Democrats have also used the filibuster too much. Both parties are guilty.
The filibuster is a good thing, but in its current form it has many problems.
Thank you, came here to say the same thing. There's no rule that says it takes 60 votes to pass the senate, that's a GOP invention.
It was the Democrats' invention.
According to Wikipedia, "Finally, in 1975 the Democratic-controlled Senate[5] revised its cloture rule so that three-fifths of the senators sworn (usually 60 senators) could limit debate, except on votes to change Senate rules, which require two-thirds to invoke cloture." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_States_Senate
Conservatives? You need to get specific, as currently the Republican party lays claim to that term and they are ANYTHING but "civil libertarians."
Tea-party conservatives, specifically. There would be a lot more people saying they support the tea-parties if the media hadn't worked so hard to portray the tea-parties as things they are not (like racist).
Hilarious. The diversity of opinions in the Democratic party is one of the reasons they've had a hard time pushing past Republican stonewalling. If you want lock-step voting, look at the Republican party.
You've been watching too much liberal news, where Republican teamwork is always called "marching in lockstep" and Democratic teamwork is called "unity". It of course confuses you when you see Democratic teamwork called "marching in lockstep".
You will not see this from anyone currently in DC.
Ron Paul was a Republican. Rand Paul, I'm not sure if he is as strict as his father, is also a Republican. But you're right that there are very few elected in either party who stand by their claims to want limited government. This is why after 8 years of disappointment from GWB and the Republicans, the tea-party formed. We always knew the Democrats opposed freedom, but the Republicans betrayed us it was clear a new movement was needed.
Again, define "conservative." The most "conservative" candidates today seem to be religious fundamentalists who are all too happy to cater to corporate interests.
Religious fundamentalists tend to be the most pro-freedom these days because their freedoms are increasingly threatened (e.g. the HHS mandate). But there certainly are politicians who are religious fundamentalists and willing to cater to corporate interests on both sides (though the liberals will claim their religious beliefs aren't really religious)
They at least "say" that, but then do so by attacking useful bits of the government in favor of the corporations stuffing money in their pockets.
It's a problem. How about if we all vote for politicians who say they'll reduce government until they all have to start saying it? Then we can vote of the politicians who do the best job of following through.
Today's conservatives believe for absolute freedom of corporations that that's it.
You're only slightly correct. There are some conservatives who act that way - and they tend to get the most funding and get elected. This is one of the reasons the tea-parties formed. The rank-and-file was sick and tired of sending politicians to Washington based on their promises to cut spending, only to have those politicians betray them.
So what happened, the media made every effort to discredit the tea-partiers, calling them names and making unreasonable accusations of racism. Was this because the media tend to be left-wing, or because the media is owned by corporations? I don't know, but either way the effects weren't pretty.
The rank-and-file conservatives are trying to get control of the party from the corporate sponsors. This is what separates them from the liberals. Liberals want their party to make the government and corporations one entity (oh you think you don't? the sad fact is the more power you give government, the more effort the industrialists will put into controlling that government, and they will succeed).
It isn't easy shrinking the government and wresting control from the corporations, but it would be nice if people who claim to be on our side would help us instead of constantly seeking to discredit us.
These all are related to foreigness, not to race. Conservatives have a long history of thinking America is great and foreign cultures and ideas aren't as good. Remember the comparisons of Kerry to the French? Was that about race too? Conservatives hate white people? When Obama gets called a communists, is that about race too? We hate him because he's part white (just like the Russians are white)?
Conservatives don't even make the connections you do. That's why were so often stunned by accusations of racism - we weren't even thinking about race!
The fact that when someone asks about a birth cirtificate, you immedately consider the race, and when someone questions a religion, you immediate think about race, and when someone questions a foreign anti-colonialist view, you immediately think about race, shows that you have race on your mind all the time. You group people by race. Conservatives don't. Conservatives group people by country (or by state if they're from Texas).
Actually I think it's his supporters who think it matters most.
Then why is it that every time I see race mentioned, it is one of Romney's opponents talking about it?
At this point, as crazy partisan as things have gotten, I'm pretty sure everyone in their right minds has already decided where they stand in the fall.
"in their right minds" is the key there. Most swing voters aren't paying attention yet. That's why the political ads will be so annoying. They're not trying to persuade thinking individuals - they're trying to persuade "independents".
2. I'm not Barack Obama. In particular, I'm white.
The only people who seem to think it matters that Romney is white are people who oppose him. Why is his skin color that so important to liberals?
Maybe that's the problem. Maybe you don't imagine. Not just being arrested, but how other people feel about such things.
I think we'd be a lot better off if other's feelings were given a little more imagination. Of course what a lot of people don't realize causes upset is somebody whose feelings are being disregarded.
You're saying I don't care about other people?? That really hurts. I do care. I can't believe you would say such a thing about me. You don't even know me!
;-)
What's that number I can call?
like in your own home
The kid isn't being accused of breaking and entering. If he were it would be the athlete facing jail time (assuming the athlete took reasonable steps to defend himself).
You've got to shift your viewpoint a little if you want to understand what's going on around you. The idea that free speech is the most holy ideal is rubbish.
It is holy from the standpoint that no one should be forced to espouse a view they find repugnant. It is practical because once we start regulating speech the regulators will make it so we criticize them (it might hurt their feelings or upset the social order if the regulators were criticized).
This kid chose to reach out into a public place to harass and intimidate someone. If you allow people to be chased out of public light by intimidation and harassment then you wind up with less freedom, as your personal freedoms to pursue things like sports are hindered by those who would hide behind free speech.
If the athlete saw the tweet, it is because the athlete chose to participate in an extremely public forum. It's not like he was just walking around shopping. He was using a medium design to allow as many people as possible to communicate. If you're going to do that you have to expect some flames no matter who you are. As for the larger question of freedom to walk around in public: someone instantly recognizable, or someone hounded by paparazzi might have case to make for restricting to what extent they should be protected in public from speech. That is indeed a difficult topic - but the answer there is not to put a blanket ban on all speech but to figure out a way to tailor the rules for only the difficult cases. The fact that Johnny Depp can't walk around without attracting a mob should not be the basis for regulating interactions between a lesser known athlete and a teenager. In cases where an individual is really annoying, there are other ways for the public to handle it. For example, as a small business owner I could refuse to hire him. What? That's illegal discrimination? Well, at least I could refuse to sell him anything at my store! Wha..? That's illegal too! Well, I suppose I could tell everyone what a jerk he is because... oh yeah, we just made that illegal. Um well I suppose I could - oh H#ll, just arrest him. Why bother with social pressure when it's so much easier to send him to jail?
No, it was Chris Columbus who made the first (and second) Harry Potter movie.
He did a good job and was able to tell the same story that was in the book.