And you're exactly the type of person the article is geared towards. Forget the fact that the article doesn't offer any solid evidence or even direct arguments against Global Warming. Just so long as it creates FUD based on the argument that since two studies controverting Global Warming happened to have been rejected by those liberal academic journals there must be a conspiracy going on--thus, Global Warming must be hoax!
Create your own FUD, it's easy!
Just:
1.) Claim to have an objective study refuting X(the actual content/quality of the study is irrelevent since it will never actually come into play. Actually, it's probably good to have poor content since it will help with step 3).
2.) Submit it to a bunch of large mainstream peer-reviewed journals.
3.) Have your papers rejected by the reputable publications.
4.) Claim that there's a conspiracy by proponents of X to silence legitimate studies challenging X. Therefor, X is naturally false.
Not only that, but those commies at Science and Nature keep rejecting my papers on creationism and flood-theory too!
I'm sick of the Liberal Media trying to shove their groundless theories of "Evolution" and "Global Warming" down our throats!
/sarcasm
Seriously though, just because two studies contradicting the general consensus of the scientific community have been rejected doesn't mean that there's some kind of conspiracy to silence dissenters. Just doing a google search on "global warming" and you'll find tons of corporate sponsored "studies" controverting the general stance of the scientific community. Most of these sites look more like PR campaigns rather than legitimate studies. Maybe the two studies challenging the dominant view just happened to not be very good studies. Large scientific journals like the ones mentioned have to turn down a lot of different papers because they're trying to maintain a certain level of integrity as well as practical limitations on the volume of information they can publish. Most people don't whine about their papers being rejected and start claiming that there's some kind of conspiracy within the scientific community though.
the use of self-deprecating language within black urban culture is slightly different than most usage of the term "nigger" and serves a different purpose.
regardless, my point was that defending/espousing homophobic rhetoric is implicitly homophobic no matter how you look at it. noting that other people consider your views bigotted does not make you any less of a bigot.
that's only true if you believe that reserving marriage as the exclusive right of heterosexuals is upholding the fundamental meaning of marriage and isn't implicitly homophobic.
it's kinda like if i said: the fanatical Left will insist that anyone who calls black people niggers is a "racist." inevitably most people would respond that such sentiments are implicitly racist. would such a response somehow prove me right(or less wrong)?
That's one take on it. Another way to look at it is that since God is omniscient, he knows exactly what's going to happen in the future before the events even transpire. Therefore, he put the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil in the Garden of Eden knowing full well that Adam would eventually be tricked into eating it.
I mean, think about it: if Adam and Even didn't know the difference between Good and Evil, then how could they be guilty of wrong-doing since they had no way of determining right from wrong--yes, God told them not to do it, but would they have known that disobeying God is wrong? Secondly, if one is incapable of making moral judgements for themselves, and had to always rely on the instincts and judgment of God, then does one really have Free Will?
So an alternative interpretation for this Biblical allegory is that God put the Tree of Knowledge in the Garden of Eden, not to test man, but to see man realize their Free Will through disobeying him and attaining the knowledge to make moral judgements themselves. The way we prove that we truly are faithful to God is then to exercise our own best judgement to arrive at the same decisions that God would have wanted us to make, without God actually commanding us to do so.
But i'm just a Godless heathen who's going to Hell so what to I know?
While I will concede that it will be a while before scientists start growing sheep with real human brains, it does seem like unless the scientific community takes an ethical stance on this issue now, this could be the direction that we'll see a large amount of research headed towards.
aside from growing sheep with human-like brains, is it ethical to grow genetically modified animals to harvest organs from?
and i'm sure your FECAL computers will be equipped with the latest in DRM technology--the bacteria will kill you if it detects any unlicences movies or mp3s.
prosecutors have to pay either way, i'd rather they be paid for prosecuting rapists than IP rights infringers.
and wealthy upper-class women aren't as susceptible to rape as poor lower-class women.
the point is, there's no money in it for corporate lobbyists to put harsher penalties on rape.
rape doesn't hurt corporate america, in fact, rape can even stimulate the economy by forcing victims to seek out therapy/pharmacutical treatment. plus, what do corporate lobbies care about rape? middle aged upper class caucasion males don't really have to worry much about sexual assault unless they're the assailant. the body of legislations passed in a particular government directly reflects its dominant ideology and where the power lies.
instead of uniting their efforts to go after spammers and companies that employ spyware/malware--the people who cause the most traffic congestion and over-stress dns serves, they go after paying customers who are using their services without harming the overall integrity of their networks OR being a menace to other users. yes, it makes plenty of sense.
gee, what's that that putrid stench? --oh, it's just the putrescence of greed-driven capitalism spreading its rot through the flesh of our society.
I don't see how having layered LCD would help achieve any of those effects any better than just writing a software driver to do the layering, which would be a lot easier to implement and u'd have a lot more control over the dynamics of--you could control the interaction between between the layers much better instead of being limited by hardware technology.
from reading the potential applications for a layered LCD, it seems to me that just writing a display driver which supports two desktops and make white pixels in the foreground transparent would be much more effective.
i think the only advantage you'd get from having layered LCD is a realistic sense of depth which doesn't seem to have many practical uses in the first place, and could probably be simulated with some creative display rendering techniques(like darken/blur the background desktop slightly).
plus, with a software driver that accomplished practically the same thing you'd: -save a ton of money -be able to choose which color pixils you want to be transparent -make semi-opaque layers or make different shades of translucency -implement as many layered desktops as you want
handheld technology is a useless and unaffordable novelty for these people. this sounds like just another attempt to create a market to profit from without considering the true needs of the targeted social group(s).
a stripped down palm pilot isn't going to bring about social change. if they are trying to connect rural indian villagers to the benefits of the modern technological world, then create government subsidized computing centers in rural villages. how about free e-libraries for people to access the internet, and free electronic texts from?
education and greater (free) access to information might give these impoverished people more upper-mobility. but giving them some technological novelties is really just shoving modern consumerist culture down their throats. i'm decidedly a computer geek and i can't even justify spending money on a palm pilot for myself. i could understand if these were cheap computers with free internet access, but giving poor rural villagers a stripped down pda with an organizer and what-not is really just like giving inner city kids $200 nike sneakers. maybe you'll condition them into thinking that they need these exorbitant luxuries, but you sure as hell aren't helping them in any way.
I'm not sure if this is how it works at majors, but with most indie record labels, when bands go on tour, the money made from the merch/cds that they sell at the shows goes directly to the band instead of to the label as when you buy a CD from a retail chain. This is why I don't ever buy CD's from Tower Records, or Best Buy. If I like a band, I will go to their shows and buy my CDs and merch there. Usually the band will receive money from the door as well even if I don't buy merchandise.
Boycotting the RIAA and record labels doesn't necessarily have to mean boycott all artists who happen to be signed to a label in the RIAA, because many of these artists probably aren't even in favor of the RIAA's actions as these actions don't benefit anyone but the labels, and in fact screw over the fans and even the musicians by limiting exposure and visibility to those bands being heavily pushed by majors through aggressive marketing(paid radio air time).
actually, they bind to opioid receptors which causes the release of opioid hormones, which in turn increases dopamine levels in the brain as well as some other biochemical reactions.
you may have it confused with methamphetamine, which is structurally similar to dopamine, which enters nerve terminals by transporters which normally transport dopamine. once the methamphetamine molecule enters the nerve terminal, it causes the release of high concentrations of dopamine, thus inducing intense feelings of pleasure and euphoria.
to all the ladies:
by enlisting my sexual services, you agree:
- to not whine about my sexual performance
- to make no unflattering remarks about the size, shape, or occasional discoloring of my genitalia
- to make no complaints regarding my stamina(or lack thereof)
- that there is no guarantee that you will be sexually satisfied
- and that there is also no guarantee that i will call you the next day
well, maybe it's not common occurrence but it does happen. i have a few friends who have testified to it. and no, what happened to them does not fit the description that you gave. usually it's a doctor or nurse who tries repeatedly to hit the same vein(probably dullying the tip of the needle in the process) and eventually just ends up collapsing the vein from all the trauma. this causes huge track marks to form the next day and severe bruising that covers the entire underside of the forearm. it also causes the vein to disappear.
i can understand junkies fucking themselves up like this, but it's not acceptible when a medical "professional" causes this kind of damage.
the rx robot develops a morphine habit and starts skimming off shots of pain killers to feed its own habit?
but seriously, is our nation's medical staff so incompetent/overworked that they can't even load a syringe properly? if so, removing this particular responsibility from their job will only give them more chances to cause potentially fatal blunders in other areas. i've heard so many horror stories about doctors and nurses collapsing patients' veins trying to administer IV medication that I'd almost trust myself more with a syringe than hospital staff. Maybe instead of paying for this $640k robot, they ought to invest more in better training for hospital staff.
Slashdot Mirror
it's the same thing they've been doing all along. only now they're openly admitting to selling unfinished technology.
And you're exactly the type of person the article is geared towards. Forget the fact that the article doesn't offer any solid evidence or even direct arguments against Global Warming. Just so long as it creates FUD based on the argument that since two studies controverting Global Warming happened to have been rejected by those liberal academic journals there must be a conspiracy going on--thus, Global Warming must be hoax!
Create your own FUD, it's easy!
Just:
1.) Claim to have an objective study refuting X(the actual content/quality of the study is irrelevent since it will never actually come into play. Actually, it's probably good to have poor content since it will help with step 3).
2.) Submit it to a bunch of large mainstream peer-reviewed journals.
3.) Have your papers rejected by the reputable publications.
4.) Claim that there's a conspiracy by proponents of X to silence legitimate studies challenging X. Therefor, X is naturally false.
Not only that, but those commies at Science and Nature keep rejecting my papers on creationism and flood-theory too!
I'm sick of the Liberal Media trying to shove their groundless theories of "Evolution" and "Global Warming" down our throats!
/sarcasm
Seriously though, just because two studies contradicting the general consensus of the scientific community have been rejected doesn't mean that there's some kind of conspiracy to silence dissenters. Just doing a google search on "global warming" and you'll find tons of corporate sponsored "studies" controverting the general stance of the scientific community. Most of these sites look more like PR campaigns rather than legitimate studies. Maybe the two studies challenging the dominant view just happened to not be very good studies. Large scientific journals like the ones mentioned have to turn down a lot of different papers because they're trying to maintain a certain level of integrity as well as practical limitations on the volume of information they can publish. Most people don't whine about their papers being rejected and start claiming that there's some kind of conspiracy within the scientific community though.
"We refer to it as a robotic shopping assistant," he told the BBC News website.
so like is it going to come with Gator installed?
the use of self-deprecating language within black urban culture is slightly different than most usage of the term "nigger" and serves a different purpose.
regardless, my point was that defending/espousing homophobic rhetoric is implicitly homophobic no matter how you look at it. noting that other people consider your views bigotted does not make you any less of a bigot.
that's only true if you believe that reserving marriage as the exclusive right of heterosexuals is upholding the fundamental meaning of marriage and isn't implicitly homophobic.
it's kinda like if i said: the fanatical Left will insist that anyone who calls black people niggers is a "racist." inevitably most people would respond that such sentiments are implicitly racist. would such a response somehow prove me right(or less wrong)?
That's one take on it. Another way to look at it is that since God is omniscient, he knows exactly what's going to happen in the future before the events even transpire. Therefore, he put the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil in the Garden of Eden knowing full well that Adam would eventually be tricked into eating it.
I mean, think about it: if Adam and Even didn't know the difference between Good and Evil, then how could they be guilty of wrong-doing since they had no way of determining right from wrong--yes, God told them not to do it, but would they have known that disobeying God is wrong? Secondly, if one is incapable of making moral judgements for themselves, and had to always rely on the instincts and judgment of God, then does one really have Free Will?
So an alternative interpretation for this Biblical allegory is that God put the Tree of Knowledge in the Garden of Eden, not to test man, but to see man realize their Free Will through disobeying him and attaining the knowledge to make moral judgements themselves. The way we prove that we truly are faithful to God is then to exercise our own best judgement to arrive at the same decisions that God would have wanted us to make, without God actually commanding us to do so.
But i'm just a Godless heathen who's going to Hell so what to I know?
While I will concede that it will be a while before scientists start growing sheep with real human brains, it does seem like unless the scientific community takes an ethical stance on this issue now, this could be the direction that we'll see a large amount of research headed towards.
aside from growing sheep with human-like brains, is it ethical to grow genetically modified animals to harvest organs from?
and i'm sure your FECAL computers will be equipped with the latest in DRM technology--the bacteria will kill you if it detects any unlicences movies or mp3s.
prosecutors have to pay either way, i'd rather they be paid for prosecuting rapists than IP rights infringers. and wealthy upper-class women aren't as susceptible to rape as poor lower-class women. the point is, there's no money in it for corporate lobbyists to put harsher penalties on rape.
rape doesn't hurt corporate america, in fact, rape can even stimulate the economy by forcing victims to seek out therapy/pharmacutical treatment. plus, what do corporate lobbies care about rape? middle aged upper class caucasion males don't really have to worry much about sexual assault unless they're the assailant. the body of legislations passed in a particular government directly reflects its dominant ideology and where the power lies.
it's the economy, stupid.
instead of uniting their efforts to go after spammers and companies that employ spyware/malware--the people who cause the most traffic congestion and over-stress dns serves, they go after paying customers who are using their services without harming the overall integrity of their networks OR being a menace to other users. yes, it makes plenty of sense.
gee, what's that that putrid stench?
--oh, it's just the putrescence of greed-driven capitalism spreading its rot through the flesh of our society.
I don't see how having layered LCD would help achieve any of those effects any better than just writing a software driver to do the layering, which would be a lot easier to implement and u'd have a lot more control over the dynamics of--you could control the interaction between between the layers much better instead of being limited by hardware technology.
from reading the potential applications for a layered LCD, it seems to me that just writing a display driver which supports two desktops and make white pixels in the foreground transparent would be much more effective.
i think the only advantage you'd get from having layered LCD is a realistic sense of depth which doesn't seem to have many practical uses in the first place, and could probably be simulated with some creative display rendering techniques(like darken/blur the background desktop slightly).
plus, with a software driver that accomplished practically the same thing you'd:
-save a ton of money
-be able to choose which color pixils you want to be transparent
-make semi-opaque layers or make different shades of translucency
-implement as many layered desktops as you want
handheld technology is a useless and unaffordable novelty for these people. this sounds like just another attempt to create a market to profit from without considering the true needs of the targeted social group(s).
a stripped down palm pilot isn't going to bring about social change. if they are trying to connect rural indian villagers to the benefits of the modern technological world, then create government subsidized computing centers in rural villages. how about free e-libraries for people to access the internet, and free electronic texts from?
education and greater (free) access to information might give these impoverished people more upper-mobility. but giving them some technological novelties is really just shoving modern consumerist culture down their throats. i'm decidedly a computer geek and i can't even justify spending money on a palm pilot for myself. i could understand if these were cheap computers with free internet access, but giving poor rural villagers a stripped down pda with an organizer and what-not is really just like giving inner city kids $200 nike sneakers. maybe you'll condition them into thinking that they need these exorbitant luxuries, but you sure as hell aren't helping them in any way.
I'm not sure if this is how it works at majors, but with most indie record labels, when bands go on tour, the money made from the merch/cds that they sell at the shows goes directly to the band instead of to the label as when you buy a CD from a retail chain. This is why I don't ever buy CD's from Tower Records, or Best Buy. If I like a band, I will go to their shows and buy my CDs and merch there. Usually the band will receive money from the door as well even if I don't buy merchandise.
Boycotting the RIAA and record labels doesn't necessarily have to mean boycott all artists who happen to be signed to a label in the RIAA, because many of these artists probably aren't even in favor of the RIAA's actions as these actions don't benefit anyone but the labels, and in fact screw over the fans and even the musicians by limiting exposure and visibility to those bands being heavily pushed by majors through aggressive marketing(paid radio air time).
but what if i wanted to post porn on my blog? you can't use tLD's categorize websites because so many websites out there are hard to categorize.
actually, they bind to opioid receptors which causes the release of opioid hormones, which in turn increases dopamine levels in the brain as well as some other biochemical reactions.
you may have it confused with methamphetamine, which is structurally similar to dopamine, which enters nerve terminals by transporters which normally transport dopamine. once the methamphetamine molecule enters the nerve terminal, it causes the release of high concentrations of dopamine, thus inducing intense feelings of pleasure and euphoria.
to all the ladies: by enlisting my sexual services, you agree: - to not whine about my sexual performance - to make no unflattering remarks about the size, shape, or occasional discoloring of my genitalia - to make no complaints regarding my stamina(or lack thereof) - that there is no guarantee that you will be sexually satisfied - and that there is also no guarantee that i will call you the next day
well, maybe it's not common occurrence but it does happen. i have a few friends who have testified to it. and no, what happened to them does not fit the description that you gave. usually it's a doctor or nurse who tries repeatedly to hit the same vein(probably dullying the tip of the needle in the process) and eventually just ends up collapsing the vein from all the trauma. this causes huge track marks to form the next day and severe bruising that covers the entire underside of the forearm. it also causes the vein to disappear.
i can understand junkies fucking themselves up like this, but it's not acceptible when a medical "professional" causes this kind of damage.
the rx robot develops a morphine habit and starts skimming off shots of pain killers to feed its own habit?
but seriously, is our nation's medical staff so incompetent/overworked that they can't even load a syringe properly? if so, removing this particular responsibility from their job will only give them more chances to cause potentially fatal blunders in other areas. i've heard so many horror stories about doctors and nurses collapsing patients' veins trying to administer IV medication that I'd almost trust myself more with a syringe than hospital staff. Maybe instead of paying for this $640k robot, they ought to invest more in better training for hospital staff.