For example, did you know that they've only been measuring atmospheric carbon dioxide levels since 1959? Less than 50 years. And did you know that they measure the carbon dioxide levels on an active volcano?... Obviously people aren't going to believe that they are measuring CO2 from an active volcano, because it's just too stupid to be true.
If the OP was not trying to at least insinuate that the CO2 readings used to support Climate Change are being taken from that active volcano, then s/he has no point, whatsoever. Is it "too stupid to be true" to measure the CO2 output of a volcano? No. Is it "too stupid to be true" that scientists would use only those measurements and discover Climate Change? Yes, that would be too stupid to be true, and that was obviously the OP's intent.
What they have is a Myth. Myths can be 'true' or 'false', but more importantly, they can be 'useful', 'useless', or even 'harmful'. Their Myth was never true, but it may be been useful for much of their tribe's history. Today, it seems to me that their Myth is useless and harmful, or perhaps it is still useful, but only to people who hope to achieve goals that I disdain (theocracy, killing pagans and homosexuals, etc.)
Is it your contention that they only measure CO2 levels at that one location, and that all Climate Change work is based on measurements from that one location? If so, then you are mentally ill. Such a belief can't be based on stupidity; you would have to be too stupid to read or write (or breathe). Please seek professional help.
I wasn't entirely certain how to read this. Are you saying that when someone from outside the US is working at your Texas facility, that the Texans are surprised at how much time-off the foreign employees get? That would match my experience.
Who believes that the soul stores memories, exactly?
Anyone who believes that they will meet (and remember) their deceased family members when they get to Heaven. Anyone who thinks that they will still have and/or know their own name when they get to Heaven. Anyone who believes in ghosts. So probably about 80% of Americans (that's not an attack, just an estimate).
When you sit down at the end of the month and ask yourself, "Where did all of my money go?", you only have to think of one person, instead of a long line of hookers, waiters, dates, hardware and hobbies.
The $49.99 deposit that I put down on Duke Nukem Forever was money well spent. And the fact that those were superior 1990 dollars just makes me more 1337 than those of you who will pay with 2012 dollars (or Euros, if 3D Realms refuses to accept dollars)!
Once upon a time, noobs looked at CORBA and said, "This is HARD!" So they set about re-creating it, poorly.
If you ever look at WSDL side-by-side with CORBA IDL, and compare call semantics, and compare on-the-wire load, and compare CPU load, you will quickly realize that XML RPC mechanisms are inferior in just about every way (including ease of use).
purchases via "casual sales" by individuals not in the ordinary course of business." Does this mean for personal purchases the use tax does not apply, or am I misinterpreting this?
I think that that clause only applies if the seller is not in the business of selling that item. If I buy a case of pickled herring for my own use, and sell you four cans (because I don't intend to live long enough to finish-off a case of pickled herring), then I am a 'casual' seller who does not have to collect sales tax.
How much combined experience does the management team and board of this company have?
This argument is also known as "The Enron Gambit": those wildly successful guys who are raking it in hand-over-fist must know better than those of us who think that their business model makes no sense. They sure showed us.
What's the difference between a ball and a human? A human can change it's direction a ball can't, how exactly do humans not have free will here
A dog can change direction. A paramecium (single-celled organism covered in cilia) can change direction. Do dogs and paramecia have Free Will?
Beavers make dams; humans make technology (apologies to those who consider beaver dams to be beaver-technology). No, the fact that someone is driven to create a living representation of a thousands-years-old mythical creature is not proof that that person had a choice to not genetically engineer a unicorn.
Similarly, if I consciously decide my next actions
If the outcome of your decision-making process is pre-determined (as determinism requires) then you had no choice in your "decision". If you have no choice in what you are going to decide, then how can your "will" be "free"?
And I'd like people who think they understand particle physics to build an accurate weather-prediction machine. It won't work on a practical level because the number of inputs and interactions is "huge", and you would have to be able to measure the approximate state of trillions of particles (same is true for weather prediction or brain simulation). But just because we don't have to means to predict outcomes, does not mean that the outcomes are not pre-determined and theoretically predictable. IOW, our pitiful inability to build such an aparatus does not disprove determinism.
But what, then, is guiding us to believe we have free will?
The same over-active "agency detection" apparatus that tricks us into thinking that a moving shadow or a bolt of lightning is a god or spirit. We have a really poor (in the false-positive direction) agency detection apparatus, which I have seen explained (Gould? Sagan?) as: those who assumed that the moving shadow was out to get them, outlived those who assumed that it was just the wind in the trees (because sometimes it was a hungry agent). Until concepts such as tithing were invented, there was little survival penalty to seeing non-obvious agents were there were none.
Stewart is a pretentious ass who looks down and mocks conservatives. Colbert does the same, just in character.
You must not be watching the same show that I am. Jon Stewart is an extremely kind/generous/softball interviewer. I've seen him conduct a 'contentious' interview maybe two or three times (one of those was Feith). Colbert is contentious and slightly in-your-face (with everyone), because he's impersonating Bill O'Reilly's evil twin. The venom you see there is necessary, if one is going to pretend to be a conservative.
It isn't "making money" that is the problem. There are acceptable ways to make money, and unacceptable ways. The intersection of art and money is touchy, and selling-out usually does hurt the art (though perhaps not in proportion to the feeling of betrayal expressed by fans). If your mother and sisters announced that they had become prostitutes, surely you wouldn't object to the fact that they were making money.
Slashdot Mirror
For example, did you know that they've only been measuring atmospheric carbon dioxide levels since 1959? Less than 50 years. And did you know that they measure the carbon dioxide levels on an active volcano? ... Obviously people aren't going to believe that they are measuring CO2 from an active volcano, because it's just too stupid to be true.
If the OP was not trying to at least insinuate that the CO2 readings used to support Climate Change are being taken from that active volcano, then s/he has no point, whatsoever. Is it "too stupid to be true" to measure the CO2 output of a volcano? No. Is it "too stupid to be true" that scientists would use only those measurements and discover Climate Change? Yes, that would be too stupid to be true, and that was obviously the OP's intent.
Are you going to try to tell the Christians that they have to give-up The Great Commission? Blasphemer! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Commission
What they have is a Myth. Myths can be 'true' or 'false', but more importantly, they can be 'useful', 'useless', or even 'harmful'. Their Myth was never true, but it may be been useful for much of their tribe's history. Today, it seems to me that their Myth is useless and harmful, or perhaps it is still useful, but only to people who hope to achieve goals that I disdain (theocracy, killing pagans and homosexuals, etc.)
Is it your contention that they only measure CO2 levels at that one location, and that all Climate Change work is based on measurements from that one location? If so, then you are mentally ill. Such a belief can't be based on stupidity; you would have to be too stupid to read or write (or breathe). Please seek professional help.
Yeah! I'm a lumberjack, and I'm OK.
I wasn't entirely certain how to read this. Are you saying that when someone from outside the US is working at your Texas facility, that the Texans are surprised at how much time-off the foreign employees get? That would match my experience.
Anyone who believes that they will meet (and remember) their deceased family members when they get to Heaven. Anyone who thinks that they will still have and/or know their own name when they get to Heaven. Anyone who believes in ghosts. So probably about 80% of Americans (that's not an attack, just an estimate).
When you sit down at the end of the month and ask yourself, "Where did all of my money go?", you only have to think of one person, instead of a long line of hookers, waiters, dates, hardware and hobbies.
The $49.99 deposit that I put down on Duke Nukem Forever was money well spent. And the fact that those were superior 1990 dollars just makes me more 1337 than those of you who will pay with 2012 dollars (or Euros, if 3D Realms refuses to accept dollars)!
Thanks to the backscatter x-ray machine at the station entrance, going in to report anything will let them know if you have a small penis.
IANAHVACE
Yes, support was farmed out to a fanatical User Group. They aren't particularly knowledgeable about the system, but they were eager for the work.
Once upon a time, noobs looked at CORBA and said, "This is HARD!" So they set about re-creating it, poorly.
If you ever look at WSDL side-by-side with CORBA IDL, and compare call semantics, and compare on-the-wire load, and compare CPU load, you will quickly realize that XML RPC mechanisms are inferior in just about every way (including ease of use).
Be fair; some Java people develop an eye for elegance. They just can't stay Java people after doing so.
I think that that clause only applies if the seller is not in the business of selling that item. If I buy a case of pickled herring for my own use, and sell you four cans (because I don't intend to live long enough to finish-off a case of pickled herring), then I am a 'casual' seller who does not have to collect sales tax.
This argument is also known as "The Enron Gambit": those wildly successful guys who are raking it in hand-over-fist must know better than those of us who think that their business model makes no sense. They sure showed us.
A dog can change direction. A paramecium (single-celled organism covered in cilia) can change direction. Do dogs and paramecia have Free Will?
Beavers make dams; humans make technology (apologies to those who consider beaver dams to be beaver-technology). No, the fact that someone is driven to create a living representation of a thousands-years-old mythical creature is not proof that that person had a choice to not genetically engineer a unicorn.
If the outcome of your decision-making process is pre-determined (as determinism requires) then you had no choice in your "decision". If you have no choice in what you are going to decide, then how can your "will" be "free"?
And I'd like people who think they understand particle physics to build an accurate weather-prediction machine. It won't work on a practical level because the number of inputs and interactions is "huge", and you would have to be able to measure the approximate state of trillions of particles (same is true for weather prediction or brain simulation). But just because we don't have to means to predict outcomes, does not mean that the outcomes are not pre-determined and theoretically predictable. IOW, our pitiful inability to build such an aparatus does not disprove determinism.
The same over-active "agency detection" apparatus that tricks us into thinking that a moving shadow or a bolt of lightning is a god or spirit. We have a really poor (in the false-positive direction) agency detection apparatus, which I have seen explained (Gould? Sagan?) as: those who assumed that the moving shadow was out to get them, outlived those who assumed that it was just the wind in the trees (because sometimes it was a hungry agent). Until concepts such as tithing were invented, there was little survival penalty to seeing non-obvious agents were there were none.
No, they're identical twins, exactly as evil. I just didn't think I needed to point-out that Bill is evil.
You must not be watching the same show that I am. Jon Stewart is an extremely kind/generous/softball interviewer. I've seen him conduct a 'contentious' interview maybe two or three times (one of those was Feith). Colbert is contentious and slightly in-your-face (with everyone), because he's impersonating Bill O'Reilly's evil twin. The venom you see there is necessary, if one is going to pretend to be a conservative.
We have met the joke, and he is us.
It isn't "making money" that is the problem. There are acceptable ways to make money, and unacceptable ways. The intersection of art and money is touchy, and selling-out usually does hurt the art (though perhaps not in proportion to the feeling of betrayal expressed by fans). If your mother and sisters announced that they had become prostitutes, surely you wouldn't object to the fact that they were making money.
And LOLCats. Slashdot is hardly more amusing than a burlap sack full of LOLCats.