A whistleblower from DHS recently reported that there is a plan afoot by the Obama regime to pull a "Reichstag Event", which would allow him to declare martial law, postponing (or cancelling) the election..
Your DHS whistleblower is insane. As is a significant fringe of Republicans, who seem to think that cooperation and democratic principles don't matter anymore, because the wrong guy is sitting in the White House.
Yes, I'm sure that all those delegates that are technically not bound by their constituents' votes will suddenly discover their deep and unabiding love for Paul, and will vote for him during the Republican Convention.
Man, I really wonder what will happen to all you Paul-fans when Romney gets the overwhelming number of delegates during the Convention. I'm sure there'll be something along the lines of him winning a write-in campaign during the actual election, because, let's face it, all the REAL Ron Paul fans haven't really voted yet.
And now you're adding ad hominems to the mix. Not one discussion of what it is Lovelock is saying, just who is saying what. Just for your reference, this isn't the first time scientists have called him to the carpet for bad ideas, and no one (until now) paid much attention to what he was saying about Global Warming. The environmentalists liked him for his Gaia theory, not his AGW position. But nice work trying to conflate all kinds of positions and people.
I guess I'll trot out another wisdom of the past: "Great minds discuss other ideas. Small minds discuss other people."
Ah yes, the activist judge. Trotted out every time someone disagrees with a judge's decision. Preferred method of populists to undermine the judiciary and the checks and balances against the tyranny of the majority.
1) Being right in the past is a bad predictor for being right in the future. 2) Agreeing with a group of people does not give you an authority to strike out on your own. 3) The Gaia hypothesis is about as crackpot a theory as it comes.
In other word, you're putting appeals to authority in other people's mouths that have never happened, from an authority that doesn't exist. That's an impressive twofer.
Because nuclear isn't a silver bullet, no matter how often you claim it. France, the country with probably the most experience running a commercial breeder reactor, has still not found a way to make it reliable and economically self-sustaining. Regular nuclear has its own set of problem (yes, even thorium reactors), and ultimately, is also a stop-gap.
Finally, I think it's hilarious that the carbon tax is now some devilish plot, when in the late 80s and early 90s, was the tool recommended by conservatives and economists as the free market solution to global warming. For anyone wondering who the hell was talking about Global Warming in the 80s: that would be the world outside the US.
People respond better when you come to them with a solution rather than admonishments, guilt and doomsday predictions.
And people take your complaints seriously if you don't throw a hissy fit every time the solution proposed has even the slightest negative impact on you.
On a side note: I find it interesting that over the weekend, anti-AGW comments are regularly upmodded over AGW comments. During the week, however, the inverse is true.
And this is what happens when you go public. Screw the user community, doing something cool, or even just being profitable. No, you have to grow and maximize shareholder value. In other words, all hail the next quarter, and screw the next year. execs can offload their shares and make millions while the company tanks.
You're correct, the algorithms are handpicked by engineers. So you think you'd rather have politician's pick the algorithm, than engineers who spent years researching the problem? And where there is a very straight-forward check on how much bias they can inject (any other search engine)?
As someone else already said: "You're a moron." And that's a statement of fact.
Let me rephrase that: "there is no reason anyone has to drive". If you like driving, knock yourself out. In the meantime, I don't particularly enjoy the tedium of working for 5 hours to avoid stupid drivers, and where the main activity is keeping a steady foot on the pedal and two eyes on every single mirror and out in the front at all times.
There are those of us who will enjoy the growl of an engine as we wing our way to our destination, doing what we want, when we want, without having to confer with a computer.
I'm sure you do. See, this is the problem with posts like yours. I can't take anything you say seriously, because your post fits the format of someone who lies about their status, their intention and their actual opinion. Go hunker down somewhere else.
1) First time poster 2) Post appears within same minute as story, despite being well over 500 words 3) Subtle plug for Bing maps 4) General gist of "Google Cars will kill people!"
Either bonch is again trying out his sockpuppets, or someone is trying to astroturf Slashdot again.
In the meantime, I look forward to hopping into my Google car and taking a nap while driving to Tahoe. As a matter of fact, driving might become really something you do while you have other things to do - like sleep, eat, work, or just read. I'd love it. There is no reason for anyone to drive.
That's because Fox News doesn't apologize. Instead, they go to court to argue that they can lie in their news segments. For example, they can blatantly lie about the party affiliation of a politician caught in a sex scandal, or they can lie about getting their talking points straight from the RNC.
Fox News is the official mouth piece of the RNC. Kinda like Pravda. Feel free to listen to them to find out what the RNC is thinking, but for actual news, ANY news other outlet is better.
And, of course, you're happily neglecting the data points of Massachussets (tied for first) and Alabama.
This is what's wrong specifically with Republicans: they ignore reality and go for truthiness. Instead of going for an actual discussion of where these data points come from and what they could mean, they're being cherry-picked to support the Go Team Go attitude. Go fuck yourself.
It is interesting to note that the concepts behind Eugenigs - racism and nativism - are generally advocated by conservatives today. You might want to be careful how and where you throw those stones.
1) What does being a former marine have to do with privacy laws? 2) What does being a former superintendent for federal contracting projects have to do with privacy laws? 3) How do you know he is quite well versed in privacy laws?
Sounds to me like you're substituting an ad hominem with two unjustified appeals to authority and an unsupported statement of fact.
It's not good to show up to a battle of wits with nothing but wet blanks.
Wait - so to solve the cost and availability problem that email has at the UofH, you are advocating that it be used as a testbed for new technologies and research?
Are you crazy? There's a reason research departments don't sell their products or provide support for them to external users.
On the other hand, it nicely illustrates the dangers of self-selected samples. The article focuses on smart people with a specialized body of knowledge who decide that anything is better than their shithole, and are willing to start from scratch in a better place. That decision alone requires guts, determination and a willingness to fight. In other words, successful immigrant entrepreneurs have a special personality profile and skillset that is less common in the general population. Shocking. Next, Forbes will tell us that immigrants arriving in the US with no special skills, no special education and a habit to segregate themselves in their ethnic community will be more likely to be and stay poor than the average American.
There's a reason Forbes isn't taken seriously in the business world, and it's articles like this.
But on the other hand, people complain that schools are expensive and inefficient. The logical conclusion is to outsource non-core departments to the lowest bidder. Isn't that how the free market is supposed to work?
Oh wait, people complain about free markets if the free markets affect them negatively. I forgot that humans are not rational beings, and are instead illogical, petty and short-sighted. Libertarians included.
I get that you want to overcomplicate it because people like to think everything is subtle and everything has 50 angles.
Now I understand why the US going down the shitter: people actually believe that complex problems can be solved with a silver bullet that conveniently costs them nothing.
Then provide scholarships for the best and brightest people at lower income levels.
What's the threshold for best and brightest? How much? And how many people should be in trade schools? And suddenly, we're right back at a directed economy. Funny how that shit works out.
I don't know how many sad sack "we are the 99%" stories I have to read where some nitwit proclaims we "promised" him or her the "American Dream" if they went to college.
That's fucking hilarious, and my new prime example for what's wrong with the US: the American Dream is for you, as long as you have enough cash to pay for it. If you don't, GDIAF. That's not a dream, that's the nightmare everyone is trying to escape from.
I don't think you understand the concept of elasticity. Or have a grasp on history. Please look up the GI Bill and Pell grants, and check what it did for the amount of people studying.
But just because paying some taxes provides a benefit, doesn't mean that paying more taxes provides more benefit. Some is good; more isn't necessarily better.
Absolutely.
Paying more taxes so Suzy's classmate Billy can blow several times my annual salary at art school, going to nightly parties and getting a degree in film studies so he can serve coffee at Starbucks? Not a good use of taxes.
Again, absolutely. Here's my question though: how many of those are there? Gut feelings don't count. And contrast with the number of people who rely on government guaranteed loans to get through school by hard work in a STEM area.
You're essentially using a well-documented single-case scenario to make a claim covering pretty much the entire college population. Not a good way to make policy.
Of course not everyone's upbringing is net subsidized. Accounting for how much paid in versus paid out is a zero sum game. But here's an interesting little bit: taxes pay for civilization. Civilization advances the entire social group. In other words, taxes provide more long-term benefits than you can get from not paying taxes. Yes, someone will receive less than they pay in. Congratulations, you discovered the cost of living in a society, where burdens are shared, and some pay more than others.
Really? Is this concept so fucking hard to understand? What the hell did you do in social studies, civics class or even history
Slashdot Mirror
A whistleblower from DHS recently reported that there is a plan afoot by the Obama regime to pull a "Reichstag Event", which would allow him to declare martial law, postponing (or cancelling) the election..
Your DHS whistleblower is insane. As is a significant fringe of Republicans, who seem to think that cooperation and democratic principles don't matter anymore, because the wrong guy is sitting in the White House.
Yes, I'm sure that all those delegates that are technically not bound by their constituents' votes will suddenly discover their deep and unabiding love for Paul, and will vote for him during the Republican Convention.
Man, I really wonder what will happen to all you Paul-fans when Romney gets the overwhelming number of delegates during the Convention. I'm sure there'll be something along the lines of him winning a write-in campaign during the actual election, because, let's face it, all the REAL Ron Paul fans haven't really voted yet.
And now you're adding ad hominems to the mix. Not one discussion of what it is Lovelock is saying, just who is saying what. Just for your reference, this isn't the first time scientists have called him to the carpet for bad ideas, and no one (until now) paid much attention to what he was saying about Global Warming. The environmentalists liked him for his Gaia theory, not his AGW position. But nice work trying to conflate all kinds of positions and people.
I guess I'll trot out another wisdom of the past: "Great minds discuss other ideas. Small minds discuss other people."
Ah yes, the activist judge. Trotted out every time someone disagrees with a judge's decision. Preferred method of populists to undermine the judiciary and the checks and balances against the tyranny of the majority.
1) Being right in the past is a bad predictor for being right in the future.
2) Agreeing with a group of people does not give you an authority to strike out on your own.
3) The Gaia hypothesis is about as crackpot a theory as it comes.
In other word, you're putting appeals to authority in other people's mouths that have never happened, from an authority that doesn't exist. That's an impressive twofer.
Fallacious appeal to authority. Having a job has no relationship with understanding AGW.
Because nuclear isn't a silver bullet, no matter how often you claim it. France, the country with probably the most experience running a commercial breeder reactor, has still not found a way to make it reliable and economically self-sustaining. Regular nuclear has its own set of problem (yes, even thorium reactors), and ultimately, is also a stop-gap.
Finally, I think it's hilarious that the carbon tax is now some devilish plot, when in the late 80s and early 90s, was the tool recommended by conservatives and economists as the free market solution to global warming. For anyone wondering who the hell was talking about Global Warming in the 80s: that would be the world outside the US.
People respond better when you come to them with a solution rather than admonishments, guilt and doomsday predictions.
And people take your complaints seriously if you don't throw a hissy fit every time the solution proposed has even the slightest negative impact on you.
On a side note: I find it interesting that over the weekend, anti-AGW comments are regularly upmodded over AGW comments. During the week, however, the inverse is true.
And this is what happens when you go public. Screw the user community, doing something cool, or even just being profitable. No, you have to grow and maximize shareholder value. In other words, all hail the next quarter, and screw the next year. execs can offload their shares and make millions while the company tanks.
I love how he talks about himself in the third person. It would be funny, it if weren't so sad.
Hi Bonch. New sockpuppet already?
You're correct, the algorithms are handpicked by engineers. So you think you'd rather have politician's pick the algorithm, than engineers who spent years researching the problem? And where there is a very straight-forward check on how much bias they can inject (any other search engine)?
As someone else already said: "You're a moron." And that's a statement of fact.
Let me rephrase that: "there is no reason anyone has to drive". If you like driving, knock yourself out. In the meantime, I don't particularly enjoy the tedium of working for 5 hours to avoid stupid drivers, and where the main activity is keeping a steady foot on the pedal and two eyes on every single mirror and out in the front at all times.
There are those of us who will enjoy the growl of an engine as we wing our way to our destination, doing what we want, when we want, without having to confer with a computer.
Visions of James Dean abound. On multiple levels.
That was never the situation. It always was "Firstname Lastname (D)", when the politician in question was an (R).
I'm sure you do. See, this is the problem with posts like yours. I can't take anything you say seriously, because your post fits the format of someone who lies about their status, their intention and their actual opinion. Go hunker down somewhere else.
1) First time poster
2) Post appears within same minute as story, despite being well over 500 words
3) Subtle plug for Bing maps
4) General gist of "Google Cars will kill people!"
Either bonch is again trying out his sockpuppets, or someone is trying to astroturf Slashdot again.
In the meantime, I look forward to hopping into my Google car and taking a nap while driving to Tahoe. As a matter of fact, driving might become really something you do while you have other things to do - like sleep, eat, work, or just read. I'd love it. There is no reason for anyone to drive.
That's because Fox News doesn't apologize. Instead, they go to court to argue that they can lie in their news segments. For example, they can blatantly lie about the party affiliation of a politician caught in a sex scandal, or they can lie about getting their talking points straight from the RNC.
Fox News is the official mouth piece of the RNC. Kinda like Pravda. Feel free to listen to them to find out what the RNC is thinking, but for actual news, ANY news other outlet is better.
And, of course, you're happily neglecting the data points of Massachussets (tied for first) and Alabama.
This is what's wrong specifically with Republicans: they ignore reality and go for truthiness. Instead of going for an actual discussion of where these data points come from and what they could mean, they're being cherry-picked to support the Go Team Go attitude. Go fuck yourself.
It is interesting to note that the concepts behind Eugenigs - racism and nativism - are generally advocated by conservatives today. You might want to be careful how and where you throw those stones.
1) What does being a former marine have to do with privacy laws?
2) What does being a former superintendent for federal contracting projects have to do with privacy laws?
3) How do you know he is quite well versed in privacy laws?
Sounds to me like you're substituting an ad hominem with two unjustified appeals to authority and an unsupported statement of fact.
It's not good to show up to a battle of wits with nothing but wet blanks.
Wait - so to solve the cost and availability problem that email has at the UofH, you are advocating that it be used as a testbed for new technologies and research?
Are you crazy? There's a reason research departments don't sell their products or provide support for them to external users.
On the other hand, it nicely illustrates the dangers of self-selected samples. The article focuses on smart people with a specialized body of knowledge who decide that anything is better than their shithole, and are willing to start from scratch in a better place. That decision alone requires guts, determination and a willingness to fight. In other words, successful immigrant entrepreneurs have a special personality profile and skillset that is less common in the general population. Shocking. Next, Forbes will tell us that immigrants arriving in the US with no special skills, no special education and a habit to segregate themselves in their ethnic community will be more likely to be and stay poor than the average American.
There's a reason Forbes isn't taken seriously in the business world, and it's articles like this.
But on the other hand, people complain that schools are expensive and inefficient. The logical conclusion is to outsource non-core departments to the lowest bidder. Isn't that how the free market is supposed to work?
Oh wait, people complain about free markets if the free markets affect them negatively. I forgot that humans are not rational beings, and are instead illogical, petty and short-sighted. Libertarians included.
I get that you want to overcomplicate it because people like to think everything is subtle and everything has 50 angles.
Now I understand why the US going down the shitter: people actually believe that complex problems can be solved with a silver bullet that conveniently costs them nothing.
Then provide scholarships for the best and brightest people at lower income levels.
What's the threshold for best and brightest? How much? And how many people should be in trade schools? And suddenly, we're right back at a directed economy. Funny how that shit works out.
I don't know how many sad sack "we are the 99%" stories I have to read where some nitwit proclaims we "promised" him or her the "American Dream" if they went to college.
That's fucking hilarious, and my new prime example for what's wrong with the US: the American Dream is for you, as long as you have enough cash to pay for it. If you don't, GDIAF. That's not a dream, that's the nightmare everyone is trying to escape from.
I don't think you understand the concept of elasticity. Or have a grasp on history. Please look up the GI Bill and Pell grants, and check what it did for the amount of people studying.
But just because paying some taxes provides a benefit, doesn't mean that paying more taxes provides more benefit. Some is good; more isn't necessarily better.
Absolutely.
Paying more taxes so Suzy's classmate Billy can blow several times my annual salary at art school, going to nightly parties and getting a degree in film studies so he can serve coffee at Starbucks? Not a good use of taxes.
Again, absolutely. Here's my question though: how many of those are there? Gut feelings don't count. And contrast with the number of people who rely on government guaranteed loans to get through school by hard work in a STEM area.
You're essentially using a well-documented single-case scenario to make a claim covering pretty much the entire college population. Not a good way to make policy.
Of course not everyone's upbringing is net subsidized. Accounting for how much paid in versus paid out is a zero sum game. But here's an interesting little bit: taxes pay for civilization. Civilization advances the entire social group. In other words, taxes provide more long-term benefits than you can get from not paying taxes. Yes, someone will receive less than they pay in. Congratulations, you discovered the cost of living in a society, where burdens are shared, and some pay more than others.
Really? Is this concept so fucking hard to understand? What the hell did you do in social studies, civics class or even history