Seriously. I read the summary. I read the article. I read the discussion on slashdot about the initial news posting. I still don't get what DECAF was exactly supposed to do, what it actually is doing, and what message the author of DECAF thinks he is sending with whatever his software does.
Wait, so you'd be ok if Obama would have channeled Bush Jr and said "I have received a mandate from the people to rule; everyone can go fuck themselves"? Really? How fucked up is your world?
Finally, political self-identification is idiotic when the voting patterns match 1-to-1 with a different party. Beck and O'Reilly are no more Independents than Deng Xiaoping was a capitalist. By the same token, all those independents who vote with a very particular group of politicians and have their same talking points belong to the same party as those politicians.
In other words, stop waving the independent banner. It still has the corporate logo for "Republican" in the corner.
Since when is the middle the halfway distance between a complete nutjob and someone who is less of a nutjob? Since when does solving a problem mean taking everybody's opinion, then cutting the differences in half?
Finally, if you think that Republicans in Congress would ever, ever cave in on universal health care, you're thoroughly mistaken. It'd be like Palin suddenly supporting 3rd-trimester abortions. They can't, they don't want to, and enough people oppose those ideas to make that sort of position switch political suicide.
Let's go beyond that - what's the difference between art like Duchamp's toilet and an actual toilet? One was declared art, the other wasn't. Now why isn't a car art? A lot of people actually argue that at least some cars are art - the Audi TT, the Ferrari GTO, Rolls Royce Silver Phantom; heck, even the venerable Citroen 2CV and old VW Beetle is considered art. So should these car markers get a cut each time one of these is resold?
Ditto that. I read the first few sentences without a problem, until I hit the part where they talk about pixels (picture elements). I couldn't figure out why the grammar and parentheses were that screwed up.... until I accidentally moused over a sentence with a Google pop-up asking me to improve the sentence. Only then did I realized I was looking the Google Translate page of the actual German page.
Hot damn. Automated language translation has come a long way.
Uh.... you do realize we're talking about the leader of a movement, not an operative? Someone who is expected to talk, not do? I'm not sure what evidence you expected to hand to the Taliban to convince them that bin Laden was to be handed over.
There is jet fuel on his clothes? A parachute in his backpack? He has a boarding pass for United 93 in his pocket? Really, what would you consider sufficient evidence? What was there was direct involvement in past bombings against US interests (including operational cooperation with the guy who first bombed the WTC), along with talk that in the past was backed up by action.
To extend your analogy again, your impossible requests for evidence indicate that you're not interested in cooperation. As a result, action will be taken without your involvement. And the first airdrop is on its way. Have a nice day.
Not to mention that if this wouldn't have been discovered now, the UAVs would have just merrily carried on with unencrypted feed until suddenly, a more advanced adversary shows up.... and then, they would have had to be grounded only after the enemy either killed off a large chunk of the fleet, or set up some nasty ambushes because they knew what we were seeing in the videos.
It'd be nice if your analogy was complete, but some parts are missing. For one, your friend was widely known to have already bombed property of cgunner, and your friend even quite happily took credit for those acts. Furthermore, your pontificating bore of a friend talked a very good game of c6gunner being the enemy of all of his friends, and deserved to die a hellish death. Complete with instructions on how said death should, could or might happen. In other words - the only thing missing here was a video confession to orchestrating, organizing and bank-rolling the bombing, which would only come a few years after c6gunner set off the bomb in your house. So really, the evidence was there, you just decided that you were looking for something that you knew didn't exist and therefore couldn't be provided. At that point, I'm entirely supportive of the fact that c6gunner is actually going after you, since you seem to be providing shelter despite knowing better.
Now, what happens afterwards.... well, unfortunately, you're bit more correct. The Taliban don't exactly have a lot of local support, but enough that they can slip in and out of Afghanistan with impunity, and the rest of the population is terrorized enough that they find it hard to cooperate with the US military, who also have a habit of shooting the wrong people.
So yeah. Your setup sucks, but I'm with you in your conclusion. Victory in Afghanistan that goes beyond "we're leaving on our own terms and can come back any time we want" is delusional.
Source? Because my anecdotal evidence agrees with me. And my friends in the psychology/psychotherapy area unfortunately have even more depressing opinions on this matter.
Sexual abuse fucks you up for life. I wish I had a counter example, but I don't.
Even showing that a single valid paper was rejected is enough, because it's not supposed to be possible.
Yes, because Scientists operate outside of human emotions, and are all Vulcans sequestered inside an alternate dimension where there is no such thing as politics./sarcasm
If you were ever stupid enough to believe that there never was a single paper that was rejected by someone because of personal rather than scientific reasons, you have no business opening your mouth... on pretty much anything.
Since it's so easy to disprove all of this, become a famous authority on this, get paid millions by energy coal companies, the Heritage foundation and other economically focused think tanks, and retire on your own private island.
Oh wait, you're still on slashdot? I guess it's easier to talk the talk than walk the walk, eh?
Now you just have to show that EVERY paper negative about AGCC was always rejected by every journal. Wow, some work, isn't it? It's going to take a lot more to prove a global conspiracy by nearly every scientist involved in the area than a single email by one person about two papers. Because otherwise, the only thing you've shown is that.... a single person rejected two papers based on personal bias against the conclusion.
Not to mention that the email said that they might still be published. In terms of a smoking gun, that's pretty damn weak.
You clearly have no idea the impact this has on children. The odds of sexually abused children becoming self-destructive adults is almost 1. I'd rather he kill them than repeatedly rape at that age - at least, there won't be a way of perpetuating the cycle of abuse.
Indeed. Not to mention that if someone comes by and asks "Why isn't this done yet?", you can point at the 20 tasks ahead of his and ask him which one ought to be re-scheduled in his favor. It drives home quite nicely that you aren't just waiting for people to grace you with requests for work.
Alternatively, I've found TiddlyWiki immensely useful - it's lightweight, allows for cross-linking and makes searching for those meeting notes a cinch.
So you're saying Israel is as oppressive as Iran? It should be as oppressive? I don't follow. Isn't Israel supposed to be the nice guy in the middle East?
I still think that shooting the laptop was not justified, and anybody trying to do so by pointing at her pictures, her map and her arab publications is really stretching the concept of security to the breaking point. However, I do agree that I vastly prefer the Israely approach to security, which only occasionally has a bunch of testy assholes man checkpoint, and which also includes an apology and replacement money if things go wrong. On the american side, when you run across testy assholes at a checkpoint, you're hosed.
Ah.... the joy of discovering that history is written by the victors. What makes someone a freedom fighter to his people makes him a terrorist to his enemies.
And the attitude that any person who dislikes Israel should be treated like a criminal and denied basic rights does far more damage than any misguided kid's political views.
There isn't much difference between Israelis complaining about Palestinian violence and early pioneers complaining about Native American violence. If you take someone's land and property with force, they will probably do whatever they can to retaliate. If you don't want them to use terrorist tactics, have the US give the same amount of weapons to Palestine as it does to Israel. I'm sure the two state solution would suddenly be vastly more appealing to the hardliners who still want to steal Palestinian land under the guise of security.
Bingo.
This entire back and forth has become so utterly useless, with both sides being able to point to too many instances of violence that justify their own use of violence. The end is only going to come if both sides bleed so much that they can't take it anymore. Sadly enough, this means that Israel is going to experience a lot more suicide bombings, and Palestinians are going to experience more visits from the Israeli Army.
Unless people on one side suddenly grow balls and break the cycle of violence. But it seems too late for that.
You're only replying to part b), but not part a). For obvious reasons, I might add. Yes, you're right, it's my fault that I hate sales, and that I royally suck at lying to prospective clients.
The other part that you ignored was that if every consultant would venture out on their own, it would be wildly inefficient. It would necessarily be impossible for organizations to hire consultants to do anything but small work that can be done by one person in a schedulable time frame. Furthermore, if your exhortation for everyone to become independent and keep all the fruits of their labor would actually be implemented by everyone, large ventures would be impossible. Even organizations like Armadillo Aerospace rely on an organizational hierarchy, with the top making more money than the bottom.
What you're demonstrating is a basic confirmation bias (also called "can't see past your own nose"). Just because something works for you doesn't mean it works for everybody, or could even work if everyone did it.
Not to mention that we can't predict when an earthquake will strike or what magnitude it will be. Yet here they are, claiming that he willfully damaged property? I can't even fathom reckless disregard for safety in this context, but willful destruction? Can I sue palmreaders for willful damage of my self-esteem?
At a significant mark-down. I used to be billed at $200 an hour for our clients, but saw about $50 of that. This is obviously an extreme case and ignores things like marketing, R&D and a huge support network, but a similar case happens even in small businesses, where I do everything - from R&D to marketing to support to sales to support to business development... you get the idea.
Yes, there's the obvious answer that I could venture out for myself, and take all the cash for myself. The problem is that this is a) inefficient, and b) not my temperament.
So yes, capitalism relies on undervaluing work done at the bottom to reward the top of the pyramid. If that wasn't the case, the US would not be able to afford its lavish lifestyle.
Oh, not this. Please. There is direct democracy, and there is representative democracy. A republic just means that there is no monarch as the head of state, and the population has some sort of say in how government is run. As a result, a direct democracy is a republic, a representative democracy is a republic, and a military junta letting the population a rubber-stamp house of representatives is a republic.
Everything that's possible in a democracy is possible in a republic, because a republic is a superset of the various types of democracies and non-royal, inheritance based forms of government.
That said, there are benefits to representative democracies that are lost in a direct democracy. But I wouldn't go so far as to categorically state that representative democracies are always better. For one, it's much easier to bribe one representatives than everyone of his/her constituents.
Really?Conservatives say that? I have to admit that I don't know any pre-Reagan conservatives, but any one who calls him/herself a conservative these days says the exact opposite of what you're saying. As for liberals, I was unaware that there was a poll-requirement in there. Is that an official party platform? Philosophical stance? As far as I can tell, it's actually a contradiction in terms - on the one hand you're claiming that liberals have grand visions, but on the other hand they're blindly following polls. Polls are the anti-thesis of grand visions, because they're an amalgamation of millions of small visions.
I'm utterly confused. It'd be nice if everyone wouldn't try to redefine words in political discussions.
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously. I read the summary. I read the article. I read the discussion on slashdot about the initial news posting. I still don't get what DECAF was exactly supposed to do, what it actually is doing, and what message the author of DECAF thinks he is sending with whatever his software does.
Worst. Story. EVER!
Wait, so you'd be ok if Obama would have channeled Bush Jr and said "I have received a mandate from the people to rule; everyone can go fuck themselves"? Really? How fucked up is your world?
Finally, political self-identification is idiotic when the voting patterns match 1-to-1 with a different party. Beck and O'Reilly are no more Independents than Deng Xiaoping was a capitalist. By the same token, all those independents who vote with a very particular group of politicians and have their same talking points belong to the same party as those politicians.
In other words, stop waving the independent banner. It still has the corporate logo for "Republican" in the corner.
Since when is the middle the halfway distance between a complete nutjob and someone who is less of a nutjob? Since when does solving a problem mean taking everybody's opinion, then cutting the differences in half?
Finally, if you think that Republicans in Congress would ever, ever cave in on universal health care, you're thoroughly mistaken. It'd be like Palin suddenly supporting 3rd-trimester abortions. They can't, they don't want to, and enough people oppose those ideas to make that sort of position switch political suicide.
Let's go beyond that - what's the difference between art like Duchamp's toilet and an actual toilet? One was declared art, the other wasn't. Now why isn't a car art? A lot of people actually argue that at least some cars are art - the Audi TT, the Ferrari GTO, Rolls Royce Silver Phantom; heck, even the venerable Citroen 2CV and old VW Beetle is considered art. So should these car markers get a cut each time one of these is resold?
Down this road lies complete madness.
Ditto that. I read the first few sentences without a problem, until I hit the part where they talk about pixels (picture elements). I couldn't figure out why the grammar and parentheses were that screwed up.... until I accidentally moused over a sentence with a Google pop-up asking me to improve the sentence. Only then did I realized I was looking the Google Translate page of the actual German page.
Hot damn. Automated language translation has come a long way.
Uh.... you do realize we're talking about the leader of a movement, not an operative? Someone who is expected to talk, not do? I'm not sure what evidence you expected to hand to the Taliban to convince them that bin Laden was to be handed over.
There is jet fuel on his clothes? A parachute in his backpack? He has a boarding pass for United 93 in his pocket? Really, what would you consider sufficient evidence? What was there was direct involvement in past bombings against US interests (including operational cooperation with the guy who first bombed the WTC), along with talk that in the past was backed up by action.
To extend your analogy again, your impossible requests for evidence indicate that you're not interested in cooperation. As a result, action will be taken without your involvement. And the first airdrop is on its way. Have a nice day.
Not to mention that if this wouldn't have been discovered now, the UAVs would have just merrily carried on with unencrypted feed until suddenly, a more advanced adversary shows up.... and then, they would have had to be grounded only after the enemy either killed off a large chunk of the fleet, or set up some nasty ambushes because they knew what we were seeing in the videos.
It'd be nice if your analogy was complete, but some parts are missing. For one, your friend was widely known to have already bombed property of cgunner, and your friend even quite happily took credit for those acts. Furthermore, your pontificating bore of a friend talked a very good game of c6gunner being the enemy of all of his friends, and deserved to die a hellish death. Complete with instructions on how said death should, could or might happen. In other words - the only thing missing here was a video confession to orchestrating, organizing and bank-rolling the bombing, which would only come a few years after c6gunner set off the bomb in your house. So really, the evidence was there, you just decided that you were looking for something that you knew didn't exist and therefore couldn't be provided. At that point, I'm entirely supportive of the fact that c6gunner is actually going after you, since you seem to be providing shelter despite knowing better.
Now, what happens afterwards.... well, unfortunately, you're bit more correct. The Taliban don't exactly have a lot of local support, but enough that they can slip in and out of Afghanistan with impunity, and the rest of the population is terrorized enough that they find it hard to cooperate with the US military, who also have a habit of shooting the wrong people.
So yeah. Your setup sucks, but I'm with you in your conclusion. Victory in Afghanistan that goes beyond "we're leaving on our own terms and can come back any time we want" is delusional.
Source? Because my anecdotal evidence agrees with me. And my friends in the psychology/psychotherapy area unfortunately have even more depressing opinions on this matter.
Sexual abuse fucks you up for life. I wish I had a counter example, but I don't.
Even showing that a single valid paper was rejected is enough, because it's not supposed to be possible.
Yes, because Scientists operate outside of human emotions, and are all Vulcans sequestered inside an alternate dimension where there is no such thing as politics. /sarcasm
If you were ever stupid enough to believe that there never was a single paper that was rejected by someone because of personal rather than scientific reasons, you have no business opening your mouth... on pretty much anything.
And why should I trust those two sites? Oh, I see, because you said so. Nice.
Since it's so easy to disprove all of this, become a famous authority on this, get paid millions by energy coal companies, the Heritage foundation and other economically focused think tanks, and retire on your own private island.
Oh wait, you're still on slashdot? I guess it's easier to talk the talk than walk the walk, eh?
Now you just have to show that EVERY paper negative about AGCC was always rejected by every journal. Wow, some work, isn't it? It's going to take a lot more to prove a global conspiracy by nearly every scientist involved in the area than a single email by one person about two papers. Because otherwise, the only thing you've shown is that.... a single person rejected two papers based on personal bias against the conclusion.
Not to mention that the email said that they might still be published. In terms of a smoking gun, that's pretty damn weak.
You clearly have no idea the impact this has on children. The odds of sexually abused children becoming self-destructive adults is almost 1. I'd rather he kill them than repeatedly rape at that age - at least, there won't be a way of perpetuating the cycle of abuse.
44 years is about life-44 years too short.
Unfortunately, if he lives through it, he'll just go right back to raping girls. Sadly, that happens too often.
Indeed. Not to mention that if someone comes by and asks "Why isn't this done yet?", you can point at the 20 tasks ahead of his and ask him which one ought to be re-scheduled in his favor. It drives home quite nicely that you aren't just waiting for people to grace you with requests for work.
Alternatively, I've found TiddlyWiki immensely useful - it's lightweight, allows for cross-linking and makes searching for those meeting notes a cinch.
So you're saying Israel is as oppressive as Iran? It should be as oppressive? I don't follow. Isn't Israel supposed to be the nice guy in the middle East?
I still think that shooting the laptop was not justified, and anybody trying to do so by pointing at her pictures, her map and her arab publications is really stretching the concept of security to the breaking point. However, I do agree that I vastly prefer the Israely approach to security, which only occasionally has a bunch of testy assholes man checkpoint, and which also includes an apology and replacement money if things go wrong. On the american side, when you run across testy assholes at a checkpoint, you're hosed.
Ah.... the joy of discovering that history is written by the victors. What makes someone a freedom fighter to his people makes him a terrorist to his enemies.
And the attitude that any person who dislikes Israel should be treated like a criminal and denied basic rights does far more damage than any misguided kid's political views.
There isn't much difference between Israelis complaining about Palestinian violence and early pioneers complaining about Native American violence. If you take someone's land and property with force, they will probably do whatever they can to retaliate. If you don't want them to use terrorist tactics, have the US give the same amount of weapons to Palestine as it does to Israel. I'm sure the two state solution would suddenly be vastly more appealing to the hardliners who still want to steal Palestinian land under the guise of security.
Bingo.
This entire back and forth has become so utterly useless, with both sides being able to point to too many instances of violence that justify their own use of violence. The end is only going to come if both sides bleed so much that they can't take it anymore. Sadly enough, this means that Israel is going to experience a lot more suicide bombings, and Palestinians are going to experience more visits from the Israeli Army.
Unless people on one side suddenly grow balls and break the cycle of violence. But it seems too late for that.
You're only replying to part b), but not part a). For obvious reasons, I might add. Yes, you're right, it's my fault that I hate sales, and that I royally suck at lying to prospective clients.
The other part that you ignored was that if every consultant would venture out on their own, it would be wildly inefficient. It would necessarily be impossible for organizations to hire consultants to do anything but small work that can be done by one person in a schedulable time frame. Furthermore, if your exhortation for everyone to become independent and keep all the fruits of their labor would actually be implemented by everyone, large ventures would be impossible. Even organizations like Armadillo Aerospace rely on an organizational hierarchy, with the top making more money than the bottom.
What you're demonstrating is a basic confirmation bias (also called "can't see past your own nose"). Just because something works for you doesn't mean it works for everybody, or could even work if everyone did it.
Not to mention that we can't predict when an earthquake will strike or what magnitude it will be. Yet here they are, claiming that he willfully damaged property? I can't even fathom reckless disregard for safety in this context, but willful destruction? Can I sue palmreaders for willful damage of my self-esteem?
At a significant mark-down. I used to be billed at $200 an hour for our clients, but saw about $50 of that. This is obviously an extreme case and ignores things like marketing, R&D and a huge support network, but a similar case happens even in small businesses, where I do everything - from R&D to marketing to support to sales to support to business development... you get the idea.
Yes, there's the obvious answer that I could venture out for myself, and take all the cash for myself. The problem is that this is a) inefficient, and b) not my temperament.
So yes, capitalism relies on undervaluing work done at the bottom to reward the top of the pyramid. If that wasn't the case, the US would not be able to afford its lavish lifestyle.
Oh, not this. Please.
There is direct democracy, and there is representative democracy. A republic just means that there is no monarch as the head of state, and the population has some sort of say in how government is run. As a result, a direct democracy is a republic, a representative democracy is a republic, and a military junta letting the population a rubber-stamp house of representatives is a republic.
Everything that's possible in a democracy is possible in a republic, because a republic is a superset of the various types of democracies and non-royal, inheritance based forms of government.
That said, there are benefits to representative democracies that are lost in a direct democracy. But I wouldn't go so far as to categorically state that representative democracies are always better. For one, it's much easier to bribe one representatives than everyone of his/her constituents.
Really?Conservatives say that? I have to admit that I don't know any pre-Reagan conservatives, but any one who calls him/herself a conservative these days says the exact opposite of what you're saying. As for liberals, I was unaware that there was a poll-requirement in there. Is that an official party platform? Philosophical stance? As far as I can tell, it's actually a contradiction in terms - on the one hand you're claiming that liberals have grand visions, but on the other hand they're blindly following polls. Polls are the anti-thesis of grand visions, because they're an amalgamation of millions of small visions.
I'm utterly confused. It'd be nice if everyone wouldn't try to redefine words in political discussions.