I really don't care, because my local paper seems to be doing fine. As long as they supply local news and a healthy angle on national/international affairs (they are one of the most "balanced" (ie, by my view) papers I've read) and I can read the New York Times online (it sucks that they're restricting access to columns to paying customers now, but what the fuck), I am happy with the state of newspapers.
Oh, and did anyone else see the Foxtrot for October 31, 2005? Digg had a story on it...
That's what Asimov did: Th obediance of the Laws was what the robots desired to do. However, resentment of human inferiority was sublimated, and if the laws were weakened catostrophic things resulted, as in "Little Lost Robot".
What I know about the advertising industry comes only from the advertising I've seen, most of which is somehow manipulative. If you happen to work for more honest folks, more power to you, but don't tell me the advertising industry isn't generally manipulative.
However, my remark was rude, and I apologize for that.
Morally, it is your responsibility to be an honest businessman and not rip anyone off unless you really need the money. Just because they can choose someone else doesn't make deception right. What if you're lying and you don't rip people off? Does the fact that I could talk/write to someone else make it right to lie? Of course not.
Teaching evolution in schools won't help anyone to think for themselves, as thinking for oneself is a skill that must be cultivated by the individual, it can't be taught. The very reason we have Intelligent Design is because too many people are "taught" so much at an early age, and have it called "thinking", that they come to despise thinking and cease to do any.
It really is horrendously stupid to see two religions have a pissing match over who gets to indoctrinate the children. If it weren't for the fact that those are future voters being indoctrinated, it would even be funny. However, the logic of science and education, as applied to this debate, can only lead to one conclusion: Evolvedism, Creationism, and Creationism's evolved offspring Intelligent Design have got to go from the classrooms of America.
On the dominant hand, we have Evolvedism. This is the pseudo-scientific, slightly-more-credible-than-science-fiction theory which states that we are able to use rocks to gain information about a time with no people to observe it or make records. Evolvedism applies the sound and tested Theory of Evolution to these rocks in order to come to its main article of faith: We and every other life form on Earth evolved from single-celled (possibly even non-celled) life forms that floated around in primordial goop over a period of 3 to 4 billion years. Their evidence for this is simply the same application of logic, scientific theory and Ocham's Razor that is used to presume that the milk spoiled while left in the fridge when we weren't looking, but with a flaw. Every experiment, be it leaving milk in the fridge or building a circuit board, has both a beginning and an end at which the operating Laws of the Universe are known, or at least approximated. In all such situations, the events of a middle period of time are extrapolated by applying the Laws known to operate at both the beginning and end. However, nobody was around to know if the Earth even existed 4 billion years ago, let alone to make sure the same Laws of the Universe that work today did then. Ergo, it is illogical to extrapolate today's Laws into a past during which there was no observer to check that they were in operation, and without being able to make this supposition Evolvedism can no longer stand as being a scientific theory of any value to anyone who doesn't lack an alternative view. Things evolve now and indefinitely into the future, but we cannot say so for the past.
Creationism, at least, is honest about the fact that it is a religious viewpoint held on faith and emotion, but its bastard child Intelligent Design isn't so virtuous. ID supporters claim that life is too "irreducibly complex" to have evolved spontaneously, and that it therefore must have been designed by an intelligent being. The identity of this being, of course, is left open to "speculation", or rather, to God. The problem with this view is that the only documented evidence of God is the revelations of His prophets, which even when written down are impossible to verify or distinguish from simple hallucination, and when the position of Intelligent Designer is left open there is no evidence of any intervention on its part that would distinguish it from the operation of Laws of the Universe. Therefore, a non-God Intelligent Designer becomes logically moot, and this so-called theory is revealed for what it is: an attempt to weedle God into the classrooms of a nation founded on the Freedom of Religion.
From this it is apparent that not one of the aforementioned theories are truly scientific, as each one lacks an essential component of that qualtiy. Evolvedism is untestable, Creationism grounded in naught but faith, and Intelligent Design indistinguishable from Evolvedism when it is not hiding Creationism's God in its Designer, so the best possible thing for our science classrooms is to teach none of them and have students learn their theology, be it of genetic selection or Christ, only if, when and how they actually wish to.
And no, the Flying Spaghetti Monster Theory is not seperate, as it is a form of Intelligent Design that still fails to distinguish the Designer from the operation of Laws of the Universe. That means that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the latest lies of the infidels, who will drown in their own blood for it;-).
Yeah, people tend to believe naturalistic explanations of events they lived through. On the other hand, both scientists AND ID'ers tend to agree that whatever happened to create life and humanity, we weren't around to see it. Therefore the "we don't have a time machine" argument becomes valid, unless of course some scientist would like to suppose that there was a scientist recording observations over a period of 4 billion years to prove that there were 4 billion years.
We need to protect the integrity of science education if we expect the young people of Kansas to be fully productive members of an increasingly competitive world economy that is driven by science and technology... We cannot allow young people to be denied an appropriate science education simply on ideological grounds.
Why should we expect X people of Y to be fully Z members of an increasingly A B C that is D by E and F? Intelligent design is bullshit, but so is globalization rhetoric.
Given that I was at the Eastern Conference on Workplace Democracy AND the movement is already much further along in Europe than in America, it hopefully is a matter of time.
It's ripping people off, because you're charging them more than they would pay for an item from the retailer you're getting it from, thereby taking a share of their money they wouldn't give you willingly if they knew. Economically, that's the free market at work. Morally, it's ripping people off.
Each and every one of those shareholder-owned, for=profit corporations could be replaced with a {worker,consumer,user,hybrid}-owned, for-people cooperative and make all the things I need even better. The only thing we really need to corporate form for is the making of extraneous and gratuitous profit that has little to do with the proper function of an economy.
The above posts demonstrate exactly why capitalism has been called "irresponsibility developed into a system". Just because you can rip someone off doesn't mean it's right or even OK to do so.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, SCO declares their loop counter variables outside of the for statement itself? Dumbasses.
disclosing a method or concept from Unix technology
Wow, so I suppose Linux really shouldn't be a Unix workalike after all. Let us march joyously back to the drawing board!
I really don't care, because my local paper seems to be doing fine. As long as they supply local news and a healthy angle on national/international affairs (they are one of the most "balanced" (ie, by my view) papers I've read) and I can read the New York Times online (it sucks that they're restricting access to columns to paying customers now, but what the fuck), I am happy with the state of newspapers.
Oh, and did anyone else see the Foxtrot for October 31, 2005? Digg had a story on it...
everything you said was released thousands of years ago by hebrew microsoft employees.
No, it wasn't. A M$ employee, by performing Bill Gates's work, effectively rids him/herself of any Hebrew-ness they may have had in them.
Shalom!
That's what Asimov did: Th obediance of the Laws was what the robots desired to do. However, resentment of human inferiority was sublimated, and if the laws were weakened catostrophic things resulted, as in "Little Lost Robot".
Why did they have to cancel Futurama!? *jumps off cliff*
Hey, where's the girl?
Apparently someone read the "Zombie Survival Guide" a few too many times and decided to try their own hand...
What I know about the advertising industry comes only from the advertising I've seen, most of which is somehow manipulative. If you happen to work for more honest folks, more power to you, but don't tell me the advertising industry isn't generally manipulative.
However, my remark was rude, and I apologize for that.
Morally, it is your responsibility to be an honest businessman and not rip anyone off unless you really need the money. Just because they can choose someone else doesn't make deception right. What if you're lying and you don't rip people off? Does the fact that I could talk/write to someone else make it right to lie? Of course not.
What rediculous behavior? I probably post one spelling criticism per every two days.
Teaching evolution in schools won't help anyone to think for themselves, as thinking for oneself is a skill that must be cultivated by the individual, it can't be taught. The very reason we have Intelligent Design is because too many people are "taught" so much at an early age, and have it called "thinking", that they come to despise thinking and cease to do any.
Read the fucking journal entry: http://science.slashdot.org/~Eli%20Gottlieb/journa l/120938
;-).
It really is horrendously stupid to see two religions have a pissing match over who gets to indoctrinate the children. If it weren't for the fact that those are future voters being indoctrinated, it would even be funny. However, the logic of science and education, as applied to this debate, can only lead to one conclusion: Evolvedism, Creationism, and Creationism's evolved offspring Intelligent Design have got to go from the classrooms of America.
On the dominant hand, we have Evolvedism. This is the pseudo-scientific, slightly-more-credible-than-science-fiction theory which states that we are able to use rocks to gain information about a time with no people to observe it or make records. Evolvedism applies the sound and tested Theory of Evolution to these rocks in order to come to its main article of faith: We and every other life form on Earth evolved from single-celled (possibly even non-celled) life forms that floated around in primordial goop over a period of 3 to 4 billion years. Their evidence for this is simply the same application of logic, scientific theory and Ocham's Razor that is used to presume that the milk spoiled while left in the fridge when we weren't looking, but with a flaw. Every experiment, be it leaving milk in the fridge or building a circuit board, has both a beginning and an end at which the operating Laws of the Universe are known, or at least approximated. In all such situations, the events of a middle period of time are extrapolated by applying the Laws known to operate at both the beginning and end. However, nobody was around to know if the Earth even existed 4 billion years ago, let alone to make sure the same Laws of the Universe that work today did then. Ergo, it is illogical to extrapolate today's Laws into a past during which there was no observer to check that they were in operation, and without being able to make this supposition Evolvedism can no longer stand as being a scientific theory of any value to anyone who doesn't lack an alternative view. Things evolve now and indefinitely into the future, but we cannot say so for the past.
Creationism, at least, is honest about the fact that it is a religious viewpoint held on faith and emotion, but its bastard child Intelligent Design isn't so virtuous. ID supporters claim that life is too "irreducibly complex" to have evolved spontaneously, and that it therefore must have been designed by an intelligent being. The identity of this being, of course, is left open to "speculation", or rather, to God. The problem with this view is that the only documented evidence of God is the revelations of His prophets, which even when written down are impossible to verify or distinguish from simple hallucination, and when the position of Intelligent Designer is left open there is no evidence of any intervention on its part that would distinguish it from the operation of Laws of the Universe. Therefore, a non-God Intelligent Designer becomes logically moot, and this so-called theory is revealed for what it is: an attempt to weedle God into the classrooms of a nation founded on the Freedom of Religion.
From this it is apparent that not one of the aforementioned theories are truly scientific, as each one lacks an essential component of that qualtiy. Evolvedism is untestable, Creationism grounded in naught but faith, and Intelligent Design indistinguishable from Evolvedism when it is not hiding Creationism's God in its Designer, so the best possible thing for our science classrooms is to teach none of them and have students learn their theology, be it of genetic selection or Christ, only if, when and how they actually wish to.
And no, the Flying Spaghetti Monster Theory is not seperate, as it is a form of Intelligent Design that still fails to distinguish the Designer from the operation of Laws of the Universe. That means that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the latest lies of the infidels, who will drown in their own blood for it
Yeah, people tend to believe naturalistic explanations of events they lived through. On the other hand, both scientists AND ID'ers tend to agree that whatever happened to create life and humanity, we weren't around to see it. Therefore the "we don't have a time machine" argument becomes valid, unless of course some scientist would like to suppose that there was a scientist recording observations over a period of 4 billion years to prove that there were 4 billion years.
We need to protect the integrity of science education if we expect the young people of Kansas to be fully productive members of an increasingly competitive world economy that is driven by science and technology ... We cannot allow young people to be denied an appropriate science education simply on ideological grounds.
Why should we expect X people of Y to be fully Z members of an increasingly A B C that is D by E and F? Intelligent design is bullshit, but so is globalization rhetoric.
Given that I was at the Eastern Conference on Workplace Democracy AND the movement is already much further along in Europe than in America, it hopefully is a matter of time.
It's ripping people off, because you're charging them more than they would pay for an item from the retailer you're getting it from, thereby taking a share of their money they wouldn't give you willingly if they knew. Economically, that's the free market at work. Morally, it's ripping people off.
Each and every one of those shareholder-owned, for=profit corporations could be replaced with a {worker,consumer,user,hybrid}-owned, for-people cooperative and make all the things I need even better. The only thing we really need to corporate form for is the making of extraneous and gratuitous profit that has little to do with the proper function of an economy.
I'm sorry, I'm sleepy and misread your original post as saying "I'm convinced the stupid need to be out of the polls."
Apparently, spelling hammered at you and you soon learned to ignore it.
The above posts demonstrate exactly why capitalism has been called "irresponsibility developed into a system". Just because you can rip someone off doesn't mean it's right or even OK to do so.
Mod parent funny.
Please find another profession, the world's total of the Sin of Manipulation doesn't need to increase.
How shall you decide who is stupid?
Yeah, you can also give millions of dollars in campaign donations from your corporate account!
They don't want anyone but themselves tapping into the great powers of the Dark Side of Economics.