That's an awfully interesting position to take. Nuclear weapons are meant to destroy vast swaths of property, but no one calls them non-violent. Similarly, the primary purpose of destroying an AM radio tower is non-violent, but the corrollary effects can very easily be violent, (such as the destruction of part of the emergency broadcast system). That's not a "what if" scenario... the EBS is used for many things and does save lives.
And that's completely avoiding the idea that "violence" is merely destructive agression. If you walk into a Macy's and start destroying displays with a baseball bat, how many people do you think will describe you as violent? My guess is somewhere close to 100 out of 100.
But before you go after the environmentalists with guns, you should probably consider that in the grand scheme of things, the loss of AM towers are the tiniest problems facing the nation right now.
Going after them with the army is obviously an overreaction, but you shouldn't marginalize the ELF. They fit every definition of "terrorist".
What factorial does it take to equal that number? I know that its very easy in math to get numbers that large, but this wasn't a place I expected to find it.
I worked with a guy who had interviewed with Creative (the cound card guys). He came in for the interview and they gave him a sampel of code from one fo their drivers, and asked him to spot the problem. He asked for one of the linked libraries, and they had an engineer come in and bring it up for him. It was about this time that he realized he must be looking at production code.
He spent another hour debugging the problem then turned to his interviewer and said "I figured out what the problem was, but if you want to know, this will be my first day." They hired him on the spot and payed him eight hours for the interview.
This is, after all, Blizzard. Have you no loyalty? No trust?
How are we supposed to trust a company that made a change to a working part of their game that provides signifigant drawbacks and NO benefits to the consumer?
They made a corporate decision to fuck the consumer. Trust them at your own fucking peril.
If they have to, commodities will be traded in another currency. There is not reason that commodities are traded in dollars other than the dollar is stable. If the dollar weren't stable, the situation proposed, then there'd be no reason for commodities to trade in it.
See, you assumed cause. You obviously can see the effect (Christians who feel aversion to science) but you assumed the cause (these people are simply ignoring something for the sake of it, which is another way of saying you're smarter).
Hilarious that you disagreed then immediately proved my point.
Most Christian people that I have met, and I've met a LOT, don't avoid science, or rather don't discount science. What sets them against it the voracity that scientifically minded people hate them with. The Catholic church spent a long time persecuting scientists (like Gallileo) and I'm not saying "the tables have turned", what I'm saying is that many scientifically minded seek out Christian beliefs which they can challenge for the sake of being confrontational.
"disdain science because it disproves there beliefs and makes them look stupid"
If science could disprove religion, then religion would be falsifiable, making it science itself. Religion and belief are not falsifiable, and thus are not science, and this is what you and many of the scientifically minded people I was talking about completely and utterly fail at.
Religious people, at least the ones that even understand what you're talking about, realize you can't disprove their beliefs... it's fukcing unfalsifiable. In which case its pretty much complete jackassery to attempt to do so and actively create conflict. Go up to a religious person who understands what you're talking about, and they'll probably be willing to hear about how something in our world works. It's when you extend that to "haha, now your beliefs are invalid" that they shut off, and this is your own damned fault.
Science very rarely attempts to answer the question "why". Sure, we know how wind happens, but why did the wind blow just right to save the foul ball and bring your favorite team a world series? This is because science assumes there is no why, and religion assumes there is.
And neither can be proven or disproven, because neither point of view is falsifiable.
So... you completely missed the point. There are things science is meant to address and things it is not, and that is by the design of the scientific method. Jackassery occurs when you use one of science or religion outside of the context of it's preconceptions.
How could they cover conservation of energy so late? That was basically lesson 1 in Chemistry and Physics, because all equation balancing relys on the concept.
I was extremely lucky. My science teacher was a research scientist who quit researching for the specific purpose of "teaching correctly". It didn't matter what the cirriculum was, she forced you to reason your way to answers.
I realized just how effective this was in my Freshman biology class when the student next to me, who was someone you'd probably refer to as a "typical black teen male" turned to me and said, "Man... you can't avoid learning in this class... yesterday I was makin' myself a sandwich and when I pulled the mayonase out I started thinking about what an immulsion was..."
But teaching at that level is absolutely exhausting... the trick, I've learned, is to show people that things follow a logical path. People, especially young people, just wait until someone tells them what happens next. Often they don't even attempt to figure out on their own what happens next. Really good science teachers challenge you to do that first. Everything else follows.
Slashdot Mirror
Where I live touch-typing has been a mandatory 6th-8th grade class for about 15 years.
Surely you meant use their income. ;)
Holy Christ, if I knew you were going to respond like that I would have just kept my mouth shut.
I'm not going to debate the relative morality of the ELF with you. The fact that you want to says more about you than I ever could.
That's an awfully interesting position to take. Nuclear weapons are meant to destroy vast swaths of property, but no one calls them non-violent. Similarly, the primary purpose of destroying an AM radio tower is non-violent, but the corrollary effects can very easily be violent, (such as the destruction of part of the emergency broadcast system). That's not a "what if" scenario... the EBS is used for many things and does save lives.
And that's completely avoiding the idea that "violence" is merely destructive agression. If you walk into a Macy's and start destroying displays with a baseball bat, how many people do you think will describe you as violent? My guess is somewhere close to 100 out of 100.
Going after them with the army is obviously an overreaction, but you shouldn't marginalize the ELF. They fit every definition of "terrorist".
What factorial does it take to equal that number? I know that its very easy in math to get numbers that large, but this wasn't a place I expected to find it.
Wow... I really flubbed the spelling on this post...
I think the real question is whether or not quantum computing can solve the Travelling Salesman problem. :)
I worked with a guy who had interviewed with Creative (the cound card guys). He came in for the interview and they gave him a sampel of code from one fo their drivers, and asked him to spot the problem. He asked for one of the linked libraries, and they had an engineer come in and bring it up for him. It was about this time that he realized he must be looking at production code.
He spent another hour debugging the problem then turned to his interviewer and said "I figured out what the problem was, but if you want to know, this will be my first day." They hired him on the spot and payed him eight hours for the interview.
I don't see a mod option for "-1 False".
Fine, I have karma to burn. Waste some more mod points.
To whoever modded me troll, why don't you actually take a look at the tags on said stories. I can't be troll for stating a fact...
Any story about any corruption in any level of government OR the private sector gets tagged "Republicans".
This is just slashdot...
Because the description of the "feature" itself is a drawback. BNET connection required to play LAN. Period.
How are we supposed to trust a company that made a change to a working part of their game that provides signifigant drawbacks and NO benefits to the consumer?
They made a corporate decision to fuck the consumer. Trust them at your own fucking peril.
Lets see the US try that against China and Russia...
Federal reserve notes are the only acceptable and legal way to pay taxes.
If they have to, commodities will be traded in another currency. There is not reason that commodities are traded in dollars other than the dollar is stable. If the dollar weren't stable, the situation proposed, then there'd be no reason for commodities to trade in it.
The difference being that the rest of the world is not REQUIRED to use dollars. The citizens of the US are.
In other words, the rest of the world has an exist strategy, and the people who you claim should be exstatic don't.
Why in the world is this story tagged "republicans"?
We knew about the affects of a high-protein diet LONG before Atkins.
See, you assumed cause. You obviously can see the effect (Christians who feel aversion to science) but you assumed the cause (these people are simply ignoring something for the sake of it, which is another way of saying you're smarter).
Hilarious that you disagreed then immediately proved my point.
Most Christian people that I have met, and I've met a LOT, don't avoid science, or rather don't discount science. What sets them against it the voracity that scientifically minded people hate them with. The Catholic church spent a long time persecuting scientists (like Gallileo) and I'm not saying "the tables have turned", what I'm saying is that many scientifically minded seek out Christian beliefs which they can challenge for the sake of being confrontational.
"disdain science because it disproves there beliefs and makes them look stupid"
If science could disprove religion, then religion would be falsifiable, making it science itself. Religion and belief are not falsifiable, and thus are not science, and this is what you and many of the scientifically minded people I was talking about completely and utterly fail at.
Religious people, at least the ones that even understand what you're talking about, realize you can't disprove their beliefs... it's fukcing unfalsifiable. In which case its pretty much complete jackassery to attempt to do so and actively create conflict. Go up to a religious person who understands what you're talking about, and they'll probably be willing to hear about how something in our world works. It's when you extend that to "haha, now your beliefs are invalid" that they shut off, and this is your own damned fault.
Science very rarely attempts to answer the question "why". Sure, we know how wind happens, but why did the wind blow just right to save the foul ball and bring your favorite team a world series? This is because science assumes there is no why, and religion assumes there is.
And neither can be proven or disproven, because neither point of view is falsifiable.
So... you completely missed the point. There are things science is meant to address and things it is not, and that is by the design of the scientific method. Jackassery occurs when you use one of science or religion outside of the context of it's preconceptions.
How could they cover conservation of energy so late? That was basically lesson 1 in Chemistry and Physics, because all equation balancing relys on the concept.
I was refering to teenagers...
How do you propose you dehumanize people, and at the same time make them better?
I was extremely lucky. My science teacher was a research scientist who quit researching for the specific purpose of "teaching correctly". It didn't matter what the cirriculum was, she forced you to reason your way to answers.
I realized just how effective this was in my Freshman biology class when the student next to me, who was someone you'd probably refer to as a "typical black teen male" turned to me and said, "Man... you can't avoid learning in this class... yesterday I was makin' myself a sandwich and when I pulled the mayonase out I started thinking about what an immulsion was..."
But teaching at that level is absolutely exhausting... the trick, I've learned, is to show people that things follow a logical path. People, especially young people, just wait until someone tells them what happens next. Often they don't even attempt to figure out on their own what happens next. Really good science teachers challenge you to do that first. Everything else follows.