"I know that you only meant to bring up a natural phenomena but bringing up the topic of natural seeps in a story about the Deepwater Horizon does make you look like a shill for BP."
Wait until the cops decide that "credit limit" equals "cash on hand".
"How much credit do you have on that there credit card, sir?"
"Um, $28,839.54"
"I have reasonable suspicion that you used your credit to purchase cocaine, online child pornography and uninspected beef steaks. Please hand it over."
It does, however, give enough of a description of its dimensions and construction to demonstrate that it would have broken apart if ever actually put to sea.
It's a myth ripped from the earlier Gilgamesh cycle in Sumerian mythology. That there are actually people today who believe it is a testament to the incredible ability of human beings to jaw-droppingly stupid.
Seeps and uncontrolled weeks-long pressure-driven explosion of oil are not the same thing.
But I tell you what. Since arsenic occurs in small amounts in many water sources, I'm going to give you a gallon of it to drink, because your logic indicates that should be perfectly alright.
According to leading chiropractors, oil is not only not harmful to marine environments, but is in fact highly beneficial! In fact, we should be dumping millions of barrels every year into the Gulf of Mexico, and should pay back all the money BP has to pay out back to them at one trillion percent interest!
Tune in next week, when I explain how the Koch Brothers are in fact the reincarnation of Jesus Christ.
This post is sort of like "I'm a black man and a liberal, but I hate affirmative action!" or "I'm a hispanic and a liberal, but I believe we should build a two hundred foot high wall on the border..."
If it wasn't a big deal, why did Ballmer get handed his balls and Microsoft shift direction and at least partially restore the Start menu, with plans to bring it back it completely in the next version?
I'd say it was a very big deal, a very big deal that hurt Microsoft's image.
The Spaniards forced Moors and Jews to convert, and then decided that the conversions, by and large, were false, or at least untrustworthy, and drove many out.
I don't think literal interpretations were ever part of the Catholic tradition. Even the Hellenic and Roman-era Jews shed many literal interpretations of the Bible in the face of Hellenic learning. For instance, Genesis clearly invokes the Sumero-Akkadian cosmography (which doubtless had spread to many Semitic-speaking peoples in the Middle East at the time), but I doubt you would have found a single learned Jew in the First Century who would have pounded his fist insisting the world was flat. And thus it long was in Judeao-Christian thinking. New learning was adopted, and since everyone tended to be governed by the notion that the Bible and nature could not be conflict, they were quick to decide "I must be reading the Bible wrong."
Actually, among Medieval Jewish, Christian and Muslim scholars, the writings they held in the highest reverence were Aristotle's, and it was Hellenic philosophy that was the lens they viewed the Bible through. Creationism's roots are not deep at all, but rather very young, no older than the 19th century as the Evangelicals and related movements were formed.
Frankly, I think Hitler's religious views, indeed the religious views of all the leading Nazis, is irrelevant. Few of them ever got their hands directly bloody murdering Jews, Gypsies and the like. It was all their God-fearing Lutheran and Catholic subordinates who did the dirty work. The underlying motivations of Hitler, Goebbels, Himmler and the other leading figures are interesting in certain perspectives, but to me, the most horrifying part of the Holocaust isn't that the leadership possessed some "out there" beliefs, but that ordinary men and women, who under other circumstances would have been considered your average citizens, no better and no worse than anyone anywhere else in the world, could be so easily manipulated into viewing people that they had lived side by side with for generations as vermin who needed exterminating.
I have two observations to make on that topic; one factual and one anecdotal.
The factual observation is that the Holocaust, while engineered by Hitler and his inner circle, was in fact the product of centuries of anti-Semitism to be found throughout Christendom. The chief difference between the Nazis and Isabella and Ferdinand was the latter did not have Zyklon B at their disposal, and thus had to use more mundane methods to get rid of the Jewish populations within the borders they ruled. The number of pogroms dating back to the earliest days of Christian dominance of Europe suggest that the Holocaust wasn't some outlier, but rather the culmination of anti-Semitic beliefs and sentiment.
The second observation is anecdotal. When was a teenager, my best friend's family had originated in Germany. Only one of his father's siblings; his youngest aunt, was born in North America. The rest had all been born in Germany before and during World War II. One day I was visiting my friend, when his grandfather, a very nice man, came up to us and told us "Whatever you hear from other people from Germany about what went on before and during the war, don't believe anyone who says they did not know. We all knew what was happening. We knew whole families were disappearing, that people who were outspoken were gone in the morning. Anyone who tells you they were ignorant of what was happening is lying."
It has stuck with me for many years, and it is chilling, because it suggests to me that many people I know personally, in the same circumstances, might turn their back on such conduct, and indeed, might allow their prejudices of any group to be built up to the point where that group is dehumanized. At that point, you don't even care what happens to them, and can bury your head in the sand with ease.
About the only thing Social Darwinism has to do with Darwinism is the word "Darwinism". Darwin explicitly made the point that the more variation the better. Social Darwinism, on the other hand, actually rejects the notion of a healthy population having plenty of variety in individual specimens; asserting that limiting variety is the path to population health.
Slashdot Mirror
"I know that you only meant to bring up a natural phenomena but bringing up the topic of natural seeps in a story about the Deepwater Horizon does make you look like a shill for BP."
Or a fucking moron.
They're assholes who are about to get completely fucked and lose whatever kind of war they think they can win against Google and Apple.
My chief problem is I'm hopelessly conflicted over which group of assholes I want to win and which group of assholes I want to lose.
Wait until the cops decide that "credit limit" equals "cash on hand".
"How much credit do you have on that there credit card, sir?"
"Um, $28,839.54"
"I have reasonable suspicion that you used your credit to purchase cocaine, online child pornography and uninspected beef steaks. Please hand it over."
Take a lifetime intake of Vitamin A in a week and tell me how that goes.
Arpaio pretty much is a gangster.
Yeah, that's what happened; that and a bake sale involving unicorn-flesh meatpies.
It does, however, give enough of a description of its dimensions and construction to demonstrate that it would have broken apart if ever actually put to sea.
It's a myth ripped from the earlier Gilgamesh cycle in Sumerian mythology. That there are actually people today who believe it is a testament to the incredible ability of human beings to jaw-droppingly stupid.
Evaporation and emulsification; evaporation leaves behind the heavier components of oil, emulsification creates a seawater-oil mixture that will sink.
There's also all the dispersants that BP flung at the leak, whose long-term effects probably still aren't fully understood.
Seeps and uncontrolled weeks-long pressure-driven explosion of oil are not the same thing.
But I tell you what. Since arsenic occurs in small amounts in many water sources, I'm going to give you a gallon of it to drink, because your logic indicates that should be perfectly alright.
According to leading chiropractors, oil is not only not harmful to marine environments, but is in fact highly beneficial! In fact, we should be dumping millions of barrels every year into the Gulf of Mexico, and should pay back all the money BP has to pay out back to them at one trillion percent interest!
Tune in next week, when I explain how the Koch Brothers are in fact the reincarnation of Jesus Christ.
And your post falls under "I'm a totally reasonable conservative/libertarian telling you this totally true anecdote about evil Democrats."
And yet you did feel it such an important story that you posted to it.
This post is sort of like "I'm a black man and a liberal, but I hate affirmative action!" or "I'm a hispanic and a liberal, but I believe we should build a two hundred foot high wall on the border..."
If there was any sanity in Kentucky, they wouldn't have been funding, by tax incentives or any other means, a bloody Creationist theme park.
Look asshole, quit fucking with /.'s advertising revenue by interjecting facts....
Signed,
CmdrTaco's Zombie
If it wasn't a big deal, why did Ballmer get handed his balls and Microsoft shift direction and at least partially restore the Start menu, with plans to bring it back it completely in the next version?
I'd say it was a very big deal, a very big deal that hurt Microsoft's image.
Wow. That literally had almost nothing to do with what I wrote.
That depends on whether you are a customer or a shareholder.
The Spaniards forced Moors and Jews to convert, and then decided that the conversions, by and large, were false, or at least untrustworthy, and drove many out.
I don't think literal interpretations were ever part of the Catholic tradition. Even the Hellenic and Roman-era Jews shed many literal interpretations of the Bible in the face of Hellenic learning. For instance, Genesis clearly invokes the Sumero-Akkadian cosmography (which doubtless had spread to many Semitic-speaking peoples in the Middle East at the time), but I doubt you would have found a single learned Jew in the First Century who would have pounded his fist insisting the world was flat. And thus it long was in Judeao-Christian thinking. New learning was adopted, and since everyone tended to be governed by the notion that the Bible and nature could not be conflict, they were quick to decide "I must be reading the Bible wrong."
Actually, among Medieval Jewish, Christian and Muslim scholars, the writings they held in the highest reverence were Aristotle's, and it was Hellenic philosophy that was the lens they viewed the Bible through. Creationism's roots are not deep at all, but rather very young, no older than the 19th century as the Evangelicals and related movements were formed.
Frankly, I think Hitler's religious views, indeed the religious views of all the leading Nazis, is irrelevant. Few of them ever got their hands directly bloody murdering Jews, Gypsies and the like. It was all their God-fearing Lutheran and Catholic subordinates who did the dirty work. The underlying motivations of Hitler, Goebbels, Himmler and the other leading figures are interesting in certain perspectives, but to me, the most horrifying part of the Holocaust isn't that the leadership possessed some "out there" beliefs, but that ordinary men and women, who under other circumstances would have been considered your average citizens, no better and no worse than anyone anywhere else in the world, could be so easily manipulated into viewing people that they had lived side by side with for generations as vermin who needed exterminating.
I have two observations to make on that topic; one factual and one anecdotal.
The factual observation is that the Holocaust, while engineered by Hitler and his inner circle, was in fact the product of centuries of anti-Semitism to be found throughout Christendom. The chief difference between the Nazis and Isabella and Ferdinand was the latter did not have Zyklon B at their disposal, and thus had to use more mundane methods to get rid of the Jewish populations within the borders they ruled. The number of pogroms dating back to the earliest days of Christian dominance of Europe suggest that the Holocaust wasn't some outlier, but rather the culmination of anti-Semitic beliefs and sentiment.
The second observation is anecdotal. When was a teenager, my best friend's family had originated in Germany. Only one of his father's siblings; his youngest aunt, was born in North America. The rest had all been born in Germany before and during World War II. One day I was visiting my friend, when his grandfather, a very nice man, came up to us and told us "Whatever you hear from other people from Germany about what went on before and during the war, don't believe anyone who says they did not know. We all knew what was happening. We knew whole families were disappearing, that people who were outspoken were gone in the morning. Anyone who tells you they were ignorant of what was happening is lying."
It has stuck with me for many years, and it is chilling, because it suggests to me that many people I know personally, in the same circumstances, might turn their back on such conduct, and indeed, might allow their prejudices of any group to be built up to the point where that group is dehumanized. At that point, you don't even care what happens to them, and can bury your head in the sand with ease.
I'm sure all the Jewish students would be thrilled with skinheads, Christian reconstructionists, neo-Nazis and the like attending their campus.
The conference is pretty much a lie. That's rather the point.
About the only thing Social Darwinism has to do with Darwinism is the word "Darwinism". Darwin explicitly made the point that the more variation the better. Social Darwinism, on the other hand, actually rejects the notion of a healthy population having plenty of variety in individual specimens; asserting that limiting variety is the path to population health.
A fantasy convention wouldn't be spun as reality.