Palin is the most dangerous. She's Dick Cheney without all the charm.
I'm glad I'm not alone in this assessment. While I think that McCain might not be all bad (despite selling his soul to the far right-wing for nomination purposes), Palin scares the living daylights out of me.
Well, the VP debate had unvetted questions. If you don't believe me, see how Palin stumbled on a number of questions because she had no clue how to answer them.
Do you know why they refuse to answer the questions? Because the majority of the electorate (or at least, those oh-so-precious swing voters) don't care about it. This is what makes this so depressing. Politicians will do whatever it takes to get elected, and this approach works.
I think what your parent was referring to was the question about what the role of a VP is. Palin essentially took up Cheney's answer that the VP is part of the legislative. Biden corrected her on that by pointing out that the only role the VP has in the legislative is to cast the tie breaker in the Senate. To me, understanding the limitations of a particular job is an important aspect of doing it well - and Palin whiffed.
Maybe, instead of worrying about rumors on these socnet "news" sites, these "journalistic watchdogs" might want to spend a little time thinking about the way mainstream journalism let down a country of more than 300 million by completely missing the fact that a presidential administration started a fucking war based upon nothing but lies and misdirection./blockquote. Speak for yourself. I knew that the war was being started based on nothing but lies and misdirection. And it wasn't because I had special insight. I just made sure that I read sources that knew what they were talking about. And they were basically all "mainstream" news sources. How did I know they knew what they were talking about? Because they were quoting original sources.
Personally, I find all that complaining about MSM and bad journalism a cop-out. Like this story demonstrates, good journalism is nothing without good readers.
I never understood the argument of factors. #1 You only have two prime factors in 12, same as in 10. #2 If you're looking for raw factors, I find working with 2.5 just as easy as working with 6. It's just a question of habit. #3 Geometrically speaking, it also doesn't make a difference.
The point is that what matters really isn't whether something is base 10, 12, 60 or 245. What matters is whether the base is consistently used. The entire world uses a base 10 system for counting. That means it's easy if your other units are also base 10. It's hard if they aren't.
Long story short: if you want to use base 12, go for it. Just use for everything,otherwise you're not gaining anything.
Wow - you managed to completely miss the point of my post.
Whether the current approach is unconstitutional is completely irrelevant. It also has no impact on the evilness of Government. It simply is a surveillance systems that is forced to monitor EVERYTHING that it can, because it cannot possibly know enough to do the differentiation that the government claims it does. Simple as that. Once you monitor, you can intercept and censor. That's it. As for what is done with that capability, past experience is a good guide.
Riiiight.... Here's the problem: if you'd know that one end is a terrorist, you'd go and arrest them. That's because if you have enough information to understand that a specific IP is a terrorist, you know where that IP is coming from and who is sitting behind it. The only reason to eavesdrop in this case is to get more intel, and that's easily achieved with regular FISA-type warrants.
A blanket monitoring system outside of FISA supervision can only exist for one reason: there is not enough information about the conversation to tie it to an existing surveillance program - in other words, the NSA doesn't know that one end is a terrorist. Which in turn means that it is doing blanket surveillance based on something other than pre-existing intel.
Quite frankly, the fact that you swallowed this piece of propaganda scares me more than the fact that it exists. Spooks will always be spooks. However, when the citizens are refusing to do a basic analysis of the propaganda they're being fed, just so that they don't have to deal with the consequences of that analysis, they stop being citizens and start being serfs.
The only difference between what China is doing and what the US is doing is that China is overtly suppressing speech. The US is just reserving its right to do so when someone feels its convenient. That's merely a difference of scale, not principle.
If you'd have actually studied the IPCC reports, the NOAA data sets or followed some of the math behind the hockey stick arguments, you'd understand that the movie you reference is pure trash. If you want to know, search the about 30 slashdot discussions that have happened in the last few years; many discussing the exact movie you mentioned.
Finally, your confusion about what is a law and what is a theory tells me that you really haven't studied the matter enough. I'd say take a few college-level physics courses. They'll be happy to explain what those two terms mean. Or, alternatively, just pay attention to some of the physics discussions here. (Hint: the distinctions are pretty arbitrary, as theory in science doesn't mean the same thing as in general discussion)
As for the cheapness of questioning funding - touche. There's a bit of difference between what I said and dismissing a study outright based on funding, but I have no interest in going there. The basic truth is that I did use the cheapest way of dismissing a statement. The fact that is appropriate in this case is pretty irrelevant.
The movie you referenced is not an opposing viewpoint. It is trash. An opposing viewpoint is something like the discussion that came up around the math behind the hockey stick graph.
Finally, if you bring funding into it, you're taking the cheapest route out of an actual review of the science. Not to mention that peer review "proof" does not exist. If you're looking for proof, head into logic or math. Not physics. I'm happy discussing the science of Climate Change, but I have no interest in wasting my time on discussing trash, or trying to prove a theory (hint:data either supports a theory, or doesn't - that's it).
Yes, because one movie made by paid lobbyists has the same scientific weight as actual studies. *rolleyes* You want to hear both sides of a debate? Read the friggin' papers.
Personally, as a computer programmer, I like to stand over doctors as they are performing delicate surgery and tell them what I believe they are doing wrong. So, you go, Larry!
... I think the point you're trying to make with this statement is one of the fundamental problems in current health care. Too often, doctors are seen as magicians dispensing truth from above. They're human. They can fail. If you see something wrong in what a doctor is prescribing or doing, it is quite possible that the doctor is actually wrong. It is then your responsibility to speak up. This counts double if you did your homework and did some background research on your condition.
I'd also say that the same applies to any other discipline. If you see a flaw in someone's argument, call them on it. People are human and do make mistakes. And amateurs have access to information that many professionals would have killed for even a few years ago.
Now, this doesn't mean that a doctor or other expert has to listen to every crackpot, and that every amateur ought to be given the same weight as a noted expert. Sometimes, the proper answer to a question is indeed "Stop wasting my time." The trick is to know what time is when.
It's wrong that the various state governments cannot collect taxes from it. If you pay close attention, most states have state lotteries. That's gambling. But it's legal because the state gets all the proceeds. Online casinos, however, are not, because they don't share their revenue.
It's really a money grab masquerading as morality. Sad, I know.
When there are so many opportunities to select a news source that fits your pre-conceived bias, then how do we have intelligent discussions rooted in reality and facts?
And that's the really, really scary part. It says that this is not possible with certain people.
Sadly, that's not what they're talking about. If anything, just watch the current "debate" that's going on on talk radio and blogs about the upcoming election. You still hear that Obama is a muslim or that Palin wants to ban specific books. Despite these ideas having been debunked multiple times, people keep repeating them. Why? Because that's what they want to believe - ideology trumping facts.
The 40-hour workweek isn't enforced. There are plenty of part-time jobs out there. Not to mention that books like The 4-hour Work Week have demonstrated how to achieve income by working less than 40 hours a week.
What I do know though is that people with his attitude cost me in one of two ways: either I get to pick up their slack because their work-rate sucks, or I get to pay their unemployment benefits because they feel they can't compete, and are owed by everyone else.
You seriously need to learn something about the terms you're throwing around. Marxism is all about class-struggle, and Social Darwinism has nothing to do with getting paid in proportion to the work you're doing.
The basic idea is this: if you're not good at what you're doing, go find something else to do. If you don't want to work, don't. Just don't come crying that Capitalism is failing you, or that the man is keeping you down. You're merely failing yourself.
I'd say this is not restricted to IT. The large majority of managers seem to have been promoted based on their ability to do a completely different job. Everyone then is surprised when they suck at managing.
I've had the luck to work with outstanding managers, and the misfortune to work with really bad ones. The difference they make in the work that's being accomplished is mind-boggling.
Not a troll. I agree that the protestant work ethic, where your work attitude defines your attitude towards god, doesn't work for everybody. That's fine. What really, really irks me though is when people use one extreme (overwork, like in the case of your dad) to justify the other (Marxism). I'd actually go one step further: justifying Marxism because overworking yourself is bad is just an excuse for laziness. I've seen this argument countless times, and every time it boils down to "I want to work less, but want to get the same amount of money as those who work more".
To clarify: I have absolutely nothing against people who make a conscious decision to earn less and live on less, because they have other priorities. As a matter of fact, I have tremendous respect for these people. It takes a certain amount of willpower to go against the consumerism that surrounds you.
What I do have a massive problem with is wannabe Marxist rebels who have no clue about capitalism, no clue about Marxism, and whose only complaint is "but it's too hard!" Well, no shit, Sherlock. Life is hard. There is no direction given from above. Marxism isn't going to solve those problems. The only one who can solve those problems is you.
I could go through your argument point by point, but I'll just focus on one:
not everybody subscribes to the protestant ethic
Ok. So you don't want to work your butt off. Fine. Good for you. Here's a newsflash then: you don't deserve a job. You have absolutely no right to demand a job or a particular income. If you can't hack it, go home. I have no requirement to support your lazy ass. So don't complain if you're unemployed, that you can't afford the ISP fees or the latest HD TV. BTW, I've seen far better Marxist rants than yours. You want real rants? Go listen to the French Communist Party. There's a real Marxist platform there. Realize, however, that even in France, they're slowly dying off - because people realize that they are full of shit, and only deliver for those who are already part of the system.
To sum it up - I'll stop waving my income-generating dick in your face if you get off my teat.
Actually, what would happen is that the rich would hire people to study the case for them, and make that their life. In other words, if there were no lawyers, rich people would create them. Which is kinda the case right now anyway. Unless the EFF or ACLU takes an interest in your case, you're pretty much forced to either pay out of your own pocket, or represent yourself.
Damn. That's got to be the oddest push for endorsement I've ever seen. I've got to give you props for making a rational argument to vote for someone with whom you completely disagree.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm glad I'm not alone in this assessment. While I think that McCain might not be all bad (despite selling his soul to the far right-wing for nomination purposes), Palin scares the living daylights out of me.
Well, the VP debate had unvetted questions. If you don't believe me, see how Palin stumbled on a number of questions because she had no clue how to answer them.
Do you know why they refuse to answer the questions? Because the majority of the electorate (or at least, those oh-so-precious swing voters) don't care about it. This is what makes this so depressing. Politicians will do whatever it takes to get elected, and this approach works.
I think what your parent was referring to was the question about what the role of a VP is. Palin essentially took up Cheney's answer that the VP is part of the legislative. Biden corrected her on that by pointing out that the only role the VP has in the legislative is to cast the tie breaker in the Senate. To me, understanding the limitations of a particular job is an important aspect of doing it well - and Palin whiffed.
I never understood the argument of factors.
#1 You only have two prime factors in 12, same as in 10.
#2 If you're looking for raw factors, I find working with 2.5 just as easy as working with 6. It's just a question of habit.
#3 Geometrically speaking, it also doesn't make a difference.
The point is that what matters really isn't whether something is base 10, 12, 60 or 245. What matters is whether the base is consistently used. The entire world uses a base 10 system for counting. That means it's easy if your other units are also base 10. It's hard if they aren't.
Long story short: if you want to use base 12, go for it. Just use for everything,otherwise you're not gaining anything.
Wow - you managed to completely miss the point of my post.
Whether the current approach is unconstitutional is completely irrelevant. It also has no impact on the evilness of Government. It simply is a surveillance systems that is forced to monitor EVERYTHING that it can, because it cannot possibly know enough to do the differentiation that the government claims it does. Simple as that. Once you monitor, you can intercept and censor. That's it. As for what is done with that capability, past experience is a good guide.
Riiiight.... Here's the problem: if you'd know that one end is a terrorist, you'd go and arrest them. That's because if you have enough information to understand that a specific IP is a terrorist, you know where that IP is coming from and who is sitting behind it. The only reason to eavesdrop in this case is to get more intel, and that's easily achieved with regular FISA-type warrants.
A blanket monitoring system outside of FISA supervision can only exist for one reason: there is not enough information about the conversation to tie it to an existing surveillance program - in other words, the NSA doesn't know that one end is a terrorist. Which in turn means that it is doing blanket surveillance based on something other than pre-existing intel.
Quite frankly, the fact that you swallowed this piece of propaganda scares me more than the fact that it exists. Spooks will always be spooks. However, when the citizens are refusing to do a basic analysis of the propaganda they're being fed, just so that they don't have to deal with the consequences of that analysis, they stop being citizens and start being serfs.
The only difference between what China is doing and what the US is doing is that China is overtly suppressing speech. The US is just reserving its right to do so when someone feels its convenient. That's merely a difference of scale, not principle.
If you'd have actually studied the IPCC reports, the NOAA data sets or followed some of the math behind the hockey stick arguments, you'd understand that the movie you reference is pure trash. If you want to know, search the about 30 slashdot discussions that have happened in the last few years; many discussing the exact movie you mentioned.
Finally, your confusion about what is a law and what is a theory tells me that you really haven't studied the matter enough. I'd say take a few college-level physics courses. They'll be happy to explain what those two terms mean. Or, alternatively, just pay attention to some of the physics discussions here. (Hint: the distinctions are pretty arbitrary, as theory in science doesn't mean the same thing as in general discussion)
As for the cheapness of questioning funding - touche. There's a bit of difference between what I said and dismissing a study outright based on funding, but I have no interest in going there. The basic truth is that I did use the cheapest way of dismissing a statement. The fact that is appropriate in this case is pretty irrelevant.
Or,alternatively, reference some basic physics which render the proposed mechanism impossible.
Sometimes, you can call bullshit without redoing the entire experiment. This is one of those times.
The movie you referenced is not an opposing viewpoint. It is trash. An opposing viewpoint is something like the discussion that came up around the math behind the hockey stick graph.
Finally, if you bring funding into it, you're taking the cheapest route out of an actual review of the science. Not to mention that peer review "proof" does not exist. If you're looking for proof, head into logic or math. Not physics. I'm happy discussing the science of Climate Change, but I have no interest in wasting my time on discussing trash, or trying to prove a theory (hint:data either supports a theory, or doesn't - that's it).
The current situation though is that people in NY are ruled by people in Montana. How is this better?
Yes, because one movie made by paid lobbyists has the same scientific weight as actual studies. *rolleyes* You want to hear both sides of a debate? Read the friggin' papers.
I'd also say that the same applies to any other discipline. If you see a flaw in someone's argument, call them on it. People are human and do make mistakes. And amateurs have access to information that many professionals would have killed for even a few years ago.
Now, this doesn't mean that a doctor or other expert has to listen to every crackpot, and that every amateur ought to be given the same weight as a noted expert. Sometimes, the proper answer to a question is indeed "Stop wasting my time." The trick is to know what time is when.
It's wrong that the various state governments cannot collect taxes from it. If you pay close attention, most states have state lotteries. That's gambling. But it's legal because the state gets all the proceeds. Online casinos, however, are not, because they don't share their revenue.
It's really a money grab masquerading as morality. Sad, I know.
And that's the really, really scary part. It says that this is not possible with certain people.
Thanks for getting my point. I'm amazed how much reactions to my examples support the study - reactions from both sides.
We can't make an educated choice if we don't understand reality.
Sadly, that's not what they're talking about. If anything, just watch the current "debate" that's going on on talk radio and blogs about the upcoming election. You still hear that Obama is a muslim or that Palin wants to ban specific books. Despite these ideas having been debunked multiple times, people keep repeating them. Why? Because that's what they want to believe - ideology trumping facts.
The 40-hour workweek isn't enforced. There are plenty of part-time jobs out there. Not to mention that books like The 4-hour Work Week have demonstrated how to achieve income by working less than 40 hours a week.
What I do know though is that people with his attitude cost me in one of two ways: either I get to pick up their slack because their work-rate sucks, or I get to pay their unemployment benefits because they feel they can't compete, and are owed by everyone else.
You seriously need to learn something about the terms you're throwing around. Marxism is all about class-struggle, and Social Darwinism has nothing to do with getting paid in proportion to the work you're doing.
The basic idea is this: if you're not good at what you're doing, go find something else to do. If you don't want to work, don't. Just don't come crying that Capitalism is failing you, or that the man is keeping you down. You're merely failing yourself.
I'd say this is not restricted to IT. The large majority of managers seem to have been promoted based on their ability to do a completely different job. Everyone then is surprised when they suck at managing.
I've had the luck to work with outstanding managers, and the misfortune to work with really bad ones. The difference they make in the work that's being accomplished is mind-boggling.
Not a troll. I agree that the protestant work ethic, where your work attitude defines your attitude towards god, doesn't work for everybody. That's fine. What really, really irks me though is when people use one extreme (overwork, like in the case of your dad) to justify the other (Marxism). I'd actually go one step further: justifying Marxism because overworking yourself is bad is just an excuse for laziness. I've seen this argument countless times, and every time it boils down to "I want to work less, but want to get the same amount of money as those who work more".
To clarify: I have absolutely nothing against people who make a conscious decision to earn less and live on less, because they have other priorities. As a matter of fact, I have tremendous respect for these people. It takes a certain amount of willpower to go against the consumerism that surrounds you.
What I do have a massive problem with is wannabe Marxist rebels who have no clue about capitalism, no clue about Marxism, and whose only complaint is "but it's too hard!" Well, no shit, Sherlock. Life is hard. There is no direction given from above. Marxism isn't going to solve those problems. The only one who can solve those problems is you.
I could go through your argument point by point, but I'll just focus on one:
Ok. So you don't want to work your butt off. Fine. Good for you. Here's a newsflash then: you don't deserve a job. You have absolutely no right to demand a job or a particular income. If you can't hack it, go home. I have no requirement to support your lazy ass. So don't complain if you're unemployed, that you can't afford the ISP fees or the latest HD TV.
BTW, I've seen far better Marxist rants than yours. You want real rants? Go listen to the French Communist Party. There's a real Marxist platform there. Realize, however, that even in France, they're slowly dying off - because people realize that they are full of shit, and only deliver for those who are already part of the system.
To sum it up - I'll stop waving my income-generating dick in your face if you get off my teat.
As the speech occurred outside of school grounds and hours, it actually is.
Actually, that's exactly what they are.
They're dead. And I don't see that argument being extended to schools in any of their correspondence. As a result, I'd say you're full of shit.
Actually, what would happen is that the rich would hire people to study the case for them, and make that their life. In other words, if there were no lawyers, rich people would create them. Which is kinda the case right now anyway. Unless the EFF or ACLU takes an interest in your case, you're pretty much forced to either pay out of your own pocket, or represent yourself.
Damn. That's got to be the oddest push for endorsement I've ever seen. I've got to give you props for making a rational argument to vote for someone with whom you completely disagree.
Well said.