Interesting how those "editorial decisions" about the "lower threshhold" always seem to allow neo-con propaganda, whereas anyone criticizing the B. Administration has to practically drive a nail through the Fox news channel anchor peoples' hands before they'll even deign to notice it.
Nah, I'll just use my non-focussed mind to figure out ways to fuck up the jobs of the people who can't think of anything else. They'll never figure out what's happening to them, and my work will look good by comparison:-)
Really though, most of the time those doctors are probably right - almost by definition, most of the sicknesses people approach them with are one of the common sicknesses. If those doctors are following the "I can predict the weather pretty well by assuming tomorrow's weather will be the same as today's" principle, they will probably be right a lot of the time.
Of course, you'd really like your doctor to be alert enough to recognize when your symptoms are just a little different than the standard, and that a simple test or two might distinguish an unusual but potentially dangerous condition...
If you have a real medical problem, go see a trained doctor. If that doctor thinks you need medication, he'll write you a perscription.
Unfortunately, a massive amount of the drug company's marketing campaign is targeted at doctors - they do everything from completely inundating the doctors with propaganda (to the point of keeping the doctor from being able to hold any mindshare about honest sources of information), to almost completely blatant bribery - lots of gifts (tokens of appreciation/samples), meals (for business of course), trips (seminars, honest!). For all but the most conscientous doctors, they can't help but be affected by this marketing blitz.
All agnostics are also atheists. They don't believe in God... the fact that they're not quite about it doesn't change the fact that they don't believe in God.
Total BS. Agnostics simply say that there's been no definitive proof of whether or not (a) God(s)/Goddess(es)/It(s) exist, and it's really pointless to claim that such (a) being(s) exist (and to try to describe their characteristics) without such proof. Just because a lot of people happen to believe the same unverifiable set of opinions does NOT make that opinion fact.
As far as what happens after you die, who knows? You might find out that human beings should have never stopped worshipping a paisley monolith buried somewhere in deep Africa. The only practical approach to find out what happens to you after you die, is to wait until you die & approach the possibility of afterlife with a sense of adventure.
If I remember correctly, the knee-jerk reaction of the "liberal" media was that "Arab terrorists did it". It was only after it turned out to be a white-boy militia freak that I started seeing a bunch of stories on militia groups. I hardly say _any_ mention about "oops, our initial guess was wrong - our bad".
Being born in the United States does not give you the right to dictate who should or should not be able to work.
Personally, there's a lot of "unproductive" U.S. citizens who I'd rather have deported than a lot of the hard-working "illegal" immigrants - some of those citizens might have a bit more respect for the world if they were forced to live in places like Afghanistan, Africa or Cuba, for at least a few years of their life.
On the other hand, the rest of the world might refuse to take such trash:P
The survival of anyone/everyone who is important to you. Natural side effect: pooling resources with other members of society to ensure collective survival results in a military. This can probably be stretched to include preemptive action, if a situation perceived to be potentially survival-threatening is developing. (Obviously, to avoid PO'ing off all your neighbors, you'd better have a really high standard of evidence for this reasoning...)
What do you mean by "survival?"
Being able to live with a low probability of getting killed.
If you would be guaranteed "survival" by colabaration or surrender to a invading force, then you would advocate colabaration or surrender?
I doubt I'd trust any "invading force" to keep such a "guarantee". I do not feel that any situation where someone else has absolute power over my life (and no reason to respect my life) is good for my chances of survival.
If you know that a war is morally necessary, and you do not go to war, then you are morally culpable for whatever evil occurs thereafter which that war would have prevented.
B.S. There are no "moral" reasons for war. You are only "morally culpable" for your own decisions - not for the decisions of other people. Using "morals" as a reason for war is just an excuse to force your will on others who don't think like you. (And I would point out that using military force to enforce your will for reasons other than your own survival on other people who don't want it, would probably qualify as a big-time moral & ethical no-no in most peoples' eyes.)
The only _ethical_ rationale for participating in war is for survival of you & the people you care about. You might get involved in someone else's war if you have decided that there's a group of people you want to protect (extending the idea of cooperating for survival), but rationalizing the use of military force for reasons other than survival is just rationalizing the "might makes right" philosophy.
Actually, with randomized salt values, they can be encrypted any number of ways. The only question is how much overhead are you willing to up with concealing such dastardly messages.
War should be waged because it is morally necessary.
Somebody else already responded with a similar message, but I also don't agree with your statement. War should be waged for reasons of SURVIVAL, not for any other reason.
I remember reading some anecdotes where some help centers deliberately labeled everyone each other's "manager"/"supervisor" (but without any real authority), so if you ask for a manager, supervisor or want to "escalate the call", essentially you get passed to the next person in the room (whether or not they are qualified or have the authority to help you with your problem).
I got the impression that call centers like that are mainly concerned with chasing annoying people away rather than actually solving any problems.
(The anthro profs were a *whole* other story. They were great fun with senses of humor almost as weird as mine, but then anthro has interested me since I've been a kid.)
The anthro guys who work in the field always had the best stories. It's amazing how many human cultures have & still use beer as social lubricant:-)
You would get compensated for providing a good or service, just like any other commercial activity. Why should you expect to get paid for anything different?
mixing different shaped molecules together doesn't create a molecule which has a new shape
I've read somewhere though that the nose has only ~20 different types of molecular receptors, and if you can control the stimulation of each type of receptor, then you can recreate any kind of scent (like the RGB of the eyes).
We just can't go to war with China because they would beat us.
I doubt they would "beat" the U.S., but I also doubt the U.S. would be able to "beat" China. I think it more probable that there wouldn't be much left of either country, and the world would take a long time to recover from the effects.
Most 1st world legal systems (not sure whether the U.S. qualifies any more) have a "fine print" legal exemption - you can't put something onerous into an agreement and then try and hide it via tactics like fine print, or clicking through 76 pages, etc. Such clauses can be invalidated in the court.
Basically, you can't put stuff in the fine print that a "reasonable" person wouldn't expect to be agreeing to in the context of the agreement being reached.
Bush & Co. are masters at creating policies & programs with grandiose goals, hyping them up to mislead the gullible, but which are ineffectual at doing anything except shoveling money to their buddies.
I'm not saying Bush's opponents have created programs which are any more praiseworthy, but they're not as good at the blatant lying about the resultant "benefit to society".
Slashdot Mirror
Well, if anything was actually being stolen, then you might have a reason to get PO'd.
And if you think you have the "right" to own the expression of ideas, then all I can say is that you should get over yourself.
Interesting how those "editorial decisions" about the "lower threshhold" always seem to allow neo-con propaganda, whereas anyone criticizing the B. Administration has to practically drive a nail through the Fox news channel anchor peoples' hands before they'll even deign to notice it.
Nah, I'll just use my non-focussed mind to figure out ways to fuck up the jobs of the people who can't think of anything else. They'll never figure out what's happening to them, and my work will look good by comparison :-)
Really though, most of the time those doctors are probably right - almost by definition, most of the sicknesses people approach them with are one of the common sicknesses. If those doctors are following the "I can predict the weather pretty well by assuming tomorrow's weather will be the same as today's" principle, they will probably be right a lot of the time.
Of course, you'd really like your doctor to be alert enough to recognize when your symptoms are just a little different than the standard, and that a simple test or two might distinguish an unusual but potentially dangerous condition...
Unfortunately, a massive amount of the drug company's marketing campaign is targeted at doctors - they do everything from completely inundating the doctors with propaganda (to the point of keeping the doctor from being able to hold any mindshare about honest sources of information), to almost completely blatant bribery - lots of gifts (tokens of appreciation/samples), meals (for business of course), trips (seminars, honest!). For all but the most conscientous doctors, they can't help but be affected by this marketing blitz.
Total BS. Agnostics simply say that there's been no definitive proof of whether or not (a) God(s)/Goddess(es)/It(s) exist, and it's really pointless to claim that such (a) being(s) exist (and to try to describe their characteristics) without such proof. Just because a lot of people happen to believe the same unverifiable set of opinions does NOT make that opinion fact.
As far as what happens after you die, who knows? You might find out that human beings should have never stopped worshipping a paisley monolith buried somewhere in deep Africa. The only practical approach to find out what happens to you after you die, is to wait until you die & approach the possibility of afterlife with a sense of adventure.
If I remember correctly, the knee-jerk reaction of the "liberal" media was that "Arab terrorists did it". It was only after it turned out to be a white-boy militia freak that I started seeing a bunch of stories on militia groups. I hardly say _any_ mention about "oops, our initial guess was wrong - our bad".
Personally, there's a lot of "unproductive" U.S. citizens who I'd rather have deported than a lot of the hard-working "illegal" immigrants - some of those citizens might have a bit more respect for the world if they were forced to live in places like Afghanistan, Africa or Cuba, for at least a few years of their life.
On the other hand, the rest of the world might refuse to take such trash :P
There's a big difference between predicting whether it will rain or not on a particular day, and forecasting climate trends.
The survival of anyone/everyone who is important to you. Natural side effect: pooling resources with other members of society to ensure collective survival results in a military. This can probably be stretched to include preemptive action, if a situation perceived to be potentially survival-threatening is developing. (Obviously, to avoid PO'ing off all your neighbors, you'd better have a really high standard of evidence for this reasoning...)
Being able to live with a low probability of getting killed.
I doubt I'd trust any "invading force" to keep such a "guarantee". I do not feel that any situation where someone else has absolute power over my life (and no reason to respect my life) is good for my chances of survival.
B.S. There are no "moral" reasons for war. You are only "morally culpable" for your own decisions - not for the decisions of other people. Using "morals" as a reason for war is just an excuse to force your will on others who don't think like you. (And I would point out that using military force to enforce your will for reasons other than your own survival on other people who don't want it, would probably qualify as a big-time moral & ethical no-no in most peoples' eyes.)
The only _ethical_ rationale for participating in war is for survival of you & the people you care about. You might get involved in someone else's war if you have decided that there's a group of people you want to protect (extending the idea of cooperating for survival), but rationalizing the use of military force for reasons other than survival is just rationalizing the "might makes right" philosophy.
Actually, with randomized salt values, they can be encrypted any number of ways. The only question is how much overhead are you willing to up with concealing such dastardly messages.
Somebody else already responded with a similar message, but I also don't agree with your statement. War should be waged for reasons of SURVIVAL, not for any other reason.
I remember reading some anecdotes where some help centers deliberately labeled everyone each other's "manager"/"supervisor" (but without any real authority), so if you ask for a manager, supervisor or want to "escalate the call", essentially you get passed to the next person in the room (whether or not they are qualified or have the authority to help you with your problem).
I got the impression that call centers like that are mainly concerned with chasing annoying people away rather than actually solving any problems.
Maybe the blimp could use solar cells, electrolysis & atmospheric water vapor to keep its hydrogen bag filled?
The anthro guys who work in the field always had the best stories. It's amazing how many human cultures have & still use beer as social lubricant :-)
Use transmission/pass-gates. Of course, then you have signal integrity problems...
Jacob taped his cell phone to the side of a model rocket just for laughs?
You would get compensated for providing a good or service, just like any other commercial activity. Why should you expect to get paid for anything different?
Whoops, my bad - maybe I was thinking about taste buds?
I've read somewhere though that the nose has only ~20 different types of molecular receptors, and if you can control the stimulation of each type of receptor, then you can recreate any kind of scent (like the RGB of the eyes).
I doubt they would "beat" the U.S., but I also doubt the U.S. would be able to "beat" China. I think it more probable that there wouldn't be much left of either country, and the world would take a long time to recover from the effects.
Yes, the U.S. government attacks only countries/organizations who it doesn't think can really hurt it.
In other words, our government behaves like a schoolyard bully.
I suspect it's a reflection of the character of our leadership.
The sad thing is that ~50% of the U.S. population rewards this kind of behavior.
I suspect it's a reflection of _their_ character.
IANAL, but this is /. :P
Most 1st world legal systems (not sure whether the U.S. qualifies any more) have a "fine print" legal exemption - you can't put something onerous into an agreement and then try and hide it via tactics like fine print, or clicking through 76 pages, etc. Such clauses can be invalidated in the court.
Basically, you can't put stuff in the fine print that a "reasonable" person wouldn't expect to be agreeing to in the context of the agreement being reached.
Bush & Co. are masters at creating policies & programs with grandiose goals, hyping them up to mislead the gullible, but which are ineffectual at doing anything except shoveling money to their buddies.
I'm not saying Bush's opponents have created programs which are any more praiseworthy, but they're not as good at the blatant lying about the resultant "benefit to society".
I think you mean greed.