There's nothing clever at all about that, it's just your basic 5th-8th grade, Iowa Proficiency Exam (they still have those?) question. Riddles should be clever. Your "riddle" was as clever as:
what's two plus two?
"initiate" is such a tricky word. for instance if he were to run on a platform of tax reduction and order his bitches in the house to write a bill that lowered taxes, would that not be initiating them?
Instant Ramen was invented then, ramen itself has been around for a very long time. I suppose lots of people don't know this, but there are lots of ramen shops all over Japan, and they cook the food the same as any food. I believe that the ramen in real shops tends to have a little more nutritional value, though it's not as convenient, of course.
This study seems like an exercise in futility. It seems to me that an equally valid interpretation of this would be that Republicans, to a shocking degree, tend to cite reports from organizations judged to be unreliable by the world's biggest news organizations, almost across the board.
Here's an example that might be relevant. Imagine looking at a sample of statements and articles about evolution. Say, for instance, that Democrats and the New York Time both tend to cite scientists and people who actually know shit about biology, while Republicans tend to cite Billy Graham and other people. Does this show a liberal bias in the news? Or does it show a bias towards science in the news, one that Republicans don't tend to share, being concerned more with appealing to their religious base.
The study was extremely deceptive in its definitions of left/liberal bias, I think. But then, I also tend to believe that the Earth is over 6009 years old, which would probably not get me cited by many Republicans.
This is a ridiculous argument, though one that contrarians seem to love. Since people don't like ads, people must be too shortsighted to realize that they are a necessary evil.
Almost everyone who's bothered to put up a complete opinion here has said that they try to block ads that are:
a) intrusive
b) irrelevant
c) deceptive
d) loud (a major complaint of mine)
Of course, regardless of what their purpose is, the main use to which the Chinese space program will be put in America is making people feel more nationalistic.
Well, everyone knows the answer to that one. Think of it as parallel to American occupation of . . . . America. I'm sure the Tibetans will all be put on little reservations and allowed to monopolize gambling in exchange for their cooperation. Governments are trustworthy like that.
We should support the free flow of information through all countries, in my opinion, regardless of corporate/national attempts to prevent it.
Of the 9 Zonk-posted articles that appeared at the top when I changed my settings, this is the least sensational.
Of course, it's also the hardest to argue about, which is a little dispiriting.
Let's see if this is right:
1) Michael Crichton's remarks on science in the media should be required reading/hearing.
2) Intelligent design, which is predicated on the assumption that nothing is knowable (the acceptance of extra-natural forces in nature rejects the knowability of all natural science), is of equivalent validity to global warming (as Crichton tried to argue in his last bit of pandering pulp).
The difference between the two theories, besides the fact that they are often on different sides of a political divide in America (no doubt the reason you chose them as your examples), is that one of them is science, the other is fundamentally un-science. Intelligent design is not only unproven, it is un-provable and also not dis-provable. Global warming, while still a topic of debate among a certain fringe, is as scientific in its predictions and foundations as any environmental science can be. While many physicists and the like may look down on environmental science, they'll be wishing they'd listended a little more closely when their coastal homes get destroyed.
Slashdot Mirror
I used to take the hypertransport bus to school, it's not all it's cracked up to be. Especially when you have two(!) hypertransfers.
There's nothing clever at all about that, it's just your basic 5th-8th grade, Iowa Proficiency Exam (they still have those?) question. Riddles should be clever. Your "riddle" was as clever as: what's two plus two?
"initiate" is such a tricky word. for instance if he were to run on a platform of tax reduction and order his bitches in the house to write a bill that lowered taxes, would that not be initiating them?
Instant Ramen was invented then, ramen itself has been around for a very long time. I suppose lots of people don't know this, but there are lots of ramen shops all over Japan, and they cook the food the same as any food. I believe that the ramen in real shops tends to have a little more nutritional value, though it's not as convenient, of course.
This study seems like an exercise in futility. It seems to me that an equally valid interpretation of this would be that Republicans, to a shocking degree, tend to cite reports from organizations judged to be unreliable by the world's biggest news organizations, almost across the board. Here's an example that might be relevant. Imagine looking at a sample of statements and articles about evolution. Say, for instance, that Democrats and the New York Time both tend to cite scientists and people who actually know shit about biology, while Republicans tend to cite Billy Graham and other people. Does this show a liberal bias in the news? Or does it show a bias towards science in the news, one that Republicans don't tend to share, being concerned more with appealing to their religious base. The study was extremely deceptive in its definitions of left/liberal bias, I think. But then, I also tend to believe that the Earth is over 6009 years old, which would probably not get me cited by many Republicans.
This is a ridiculous argument, though one that contrarians seem to love. Since people don't like ads, people must be too shortsighted to realize that they are a necessary evil. Almost everyone who's bothered to put up a complete opinion here has said that they try to block ads that are: a) intrusive b) irrelevant c) deceptive d) loud (a major complaint of mine)
but not a penny for tribute!
Of course, regardless of what their purpose is, the main use to which the Chinese space program will be put in America is making people feel more nationalistic.
Well, everyone knows the answer to that one. Think of it as parallel to American occupation of . . . . America. I'm sure the Tibetans will all be put on little reservations and allowed to monopolize gambling in exchange for their cooperation. Governments are trustworthy like that. We should support the free flow of information through all countries, in my opinion, regardless of corporate/national attempts to prevent it.
Of the 9 Zonk-posted articles that appeared at the top when I changed my settings, this is the least sensational. Of course, it's also the hardest to argue about, which is a little dispiriting.
Let's see if this is right: 1) Michael Crichton's remarks on science in the media should be required reading/hearing. 2) Intelligent design, which is predicated on the assumption that nothing is knowable (the acceptance of extra-natural forces in nature rejects the knowability of all natural science), is of equivalent validity to global warming (as Crichton tried to argue in his last bit of pandering pulp). The difference between the two theories, besides the fact that they are often on different sides of a political divide in America (no doubt the reason you chose them as your examples), is that one of them is science, the other is fundamentally un-science. Intelligent design is not only unproven, it is un-provable and also not dis-provable. Global warming, while still a topic of debate among a certain fringe, is as scientific in its predictions and foundations as any environmental science can be. While many physicists and the like may look down on environmental science, they'll be wishing they'd listended a little more closely when their coastal homes get destroyed.