A correlation was shown, but with a 6 digit UID you've been here long enough to know that correlation does not necessarily mean causation. The possibilities:
Coffee causes early death (doubtful) Early death causes coffee (impossible) Something else causes both (most likely) Coincidence (possible but unlikely)
I should be dead, because I've been drinking a whole pot every day for over 40 years. But then, I'm in the middle of few Bell curves.
Perhaps there's no causation behind this correlation? Perhaps what kills you isn't the coffee (like you said humorously) but substituting coffee for sleep? If a and b or correlated, sometimes the causative factor is c which triggers both a and b.
I drink a lot of coffee, but I also sleep 7 to 9 hours a night. This needs further study.
[Our leaders] focus on the price of everything, without grasping the value of anything. And the value of a college education â" not only to Americaâ(TM)s youth, but most significantly to our whole societyâ(TM)s economic and democratic future â" is clearly established.
So the big question to be asking is this: Why isnâ(TM)t higher education free? Les Leopold, director of the Labor Institute, notes in a July 2 Alternet piece, âoeFor over 150 years, our nation has recognized that tuition-free primary and secondary schools were absolutely vital to the growth and functioning of our commonwealth.â
Providing free education, from kindergarten through high school, paid off big for us. Today, though, thatâ(TM)s not enough, for open access to a college degree or other advanced training is as vital to America as a high school diploma has been in our past.
Forget interest rates, young people should not be blocked by a massive debt-load from getting the education that they need to succeed â" but also that all of America needs them to have for our mutual prosperity and democratic strength.
Next time you start thinking about how terrible Bush or Obama is, compare him to Grant, Harding, Buchanan, and Nixon.
Well, except Nixon I only know of those presidents from books. Nixon was bad; I voted for his election and against his reelection. Actually, IMO the only two Presidents in my lifetime who didn't suck were Eisenhower and Clinton, and I could be wrong about Eisenhower, since I was five months old when he was elected and only eight when he left office (and Clinton was far from perfect; Ruby Ridge and Waco). Kennedy and Ford weren't in office long enough to make much of a judgement about their efforts (Ford was the only President to never win a national election).
Another really bad President was Coolige, and my knowledge of him only comes from a history class and its textbook, and what my grandmother told me (she was born in 1903). The history books won't tell you what she said -- the roaring twenties only roared for the rich, everyone else had it very rough. The books do agree with her that it was Coolidge that caused the depression. And Grandma was a life-long Republican who voted against FDR in every election he was on the ballot.
Well, if you aren't interested in defending the rights of "bosses", who I assume to mean "employers", then there's that.
Employers are overrepresented, and have the means to defend their rights. Their employees do not.
The end result of that would be the confiscation of the people's property rights by putting the means of production into the hands of the government.
That came out of the blue, in no way do I support government owning the means of production. Everyone should have the right to start or buy a business, but business should not have the right to screw over their workers.
Mandating overtime pay means taking rights away from employers.
Yes, the "right" to screw employees.
You may scoff, but the EPA prevents people from doing anything with land features (like lakes or wetland) that is entirely contained within their property and doesn't harm anyone.
If you don't want to own a wetland, don't buy one.
Syntax, grammar, and spelling are intended to assist communication.
Exactly. Writing "the bank should loose money" when it should be "lose" completely changes the meaning of the sentence. Misspellings confuse and slow down and detract from comprehension when the reader doesn't move his lips when he reads.
Misuse of those rules to provide a service they are not, and have never been intended for (conveying how "smart", or how "valuable" the communication itself is) is not rational.
Of course it is. If you write like a third grader it's safe to assume you paid no attention in school and probably dropped out as soon as it was legal. I've noticed that folks who write like that also are factually incorrect most of the time as well. Why should I lend credence to the uneducated?
Drawing attention to incorrect use, as an excuse to ignore communication you find disfavorable, is pure hypocrisy.
Drawing attention to incorrect use is meant to be educational to the one you're correcting.
You are unwilling to finish reading something that does not meet your onerous preconceptions of value.
Correct.
You hypocritically misuse language rules while condemning others for a related infraction.
Nobody's perfect, but some of us at least make an effort.
You have clearly demonstrated your own lack of tolerance in intellectual matters
I'm not tolerant of ignorance disguised as knowledge.
You have clearly demonstrated that you are unable to approach the situation without subjective biases, and that you will cling to strawmen rather than actually "degrade yourself" to actually finish reading what was written.
I'm not going to wade through unreadable prose written by the uneducated. The uneducated cannot educate.
Which is correct: Jail, or Gaol.
Both. Language evolves, as anyone who's read ancient texts can attest. E.g., "hacker" used to mean someone who re-purposes hardware, or writes quick and dirty code. Now it means someone who breaks into computers. The rules do change from time to time.
But Mark Twain's works, over a hundred years old, are as readable as they were when they were written. A modern dropout's writing is not.
I realize that there is a disproportionate number of person on slashdot that give exceptional levels of percieved value to the "correct" employment of language, structure, and punctuation
Yes, readability. Reading someone who says "If you difficulty in comprehending what I had written, such as if I had used ambiguous kanguage that could potentially have many and possibly conflictory meanings" is like listening to someone who not only has a severe speech impediment, but mumbles as well. And many errors, like not knowing the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their, or whose and who's, or uses greengrocers' apostrophes, shows himself to be uneducated and probably barely literate.
If you can't easily communicate using the written word, shut the fuck up. I don't want to read your gibberish.
Or do you claim that had Bush not been president 9/11 would not have happened? Had Bush not been president the deregulation of the banking industry started by Clinton would not have caused the banks to go nuts and crash the economy?
It would depend on who was President at the time. The FBI ignored its own agents who had warned of it. Had the FBI had a different director those clues may not have been ignored. As to the bankers, that was 100% Clinton's veto-proof congress' fault, and I doubt a different post-Clinton President could have done much... but an eloquent enough anti-wallstreet President might have swayed them (although I'm doubtful).
You still fail to redress Johnson's punishing of the south. There was a president (and congress) who intentionally set out to impose hardships on a significant set of the population.
I think historians agree that both Presidents named Johnson sucked. The postwar Johnson might have been as bad as Bush; Bush's Congress sucked, too.
How would a short URL defeat the lame filters? That seems backwards; a long URL of lowercase letters might possibly defeat the SHOUTING filter and the "not enough characters per line" filter. You have me puzzled.
even rabid christians and retailers hoping for some dollars for jesus
Firstly, Christians aren't clamoring for a longer Christmas season. Most Christians I know complain about how long it is. Secondly, retailers don't give two shits about Jesus, they worship money. Their holiday, when they worship THEIR god, is called "Black Friday".
The reality is that the vast majority of American's
are uneducated. In history as well as third grade punctuation.
Name another President that started with a budget surplus and ended with the biggest deficit in history, started TWO wars at the same time, and went into office in a boom and ended in a terrible economy?
Yes, Hoover went in during a boom and ended in a depression, other Presidents have had similar failures, but if there were any but Bush that had such a bad run I must have missed class that day. Bush was certainly the worst President in my 61 year lifetime. I thought I'd never see worse than Carter but Bush beat him hands down in his terrible stewardship.
Actually, I'd like to see a labor party, one that would defend the rights of working people rather than their bosses. The right to a safe workplace, the right to clean air and water, etc.
If by "environmental-socialist theocracy" you mean strict environmental and labor laws, laws like the Europeans have mandating overtime be paid as such, that we have single payer health care, paid vacations of a decent length, a decent safety net so the poor don't have to steal from me, I wouldn't mind a bit.
Since the Gs are for legalizing drugs they are indeed for expansion of my rights. Truthfully, I haven't looked closely at their platform. What rights would they restrict?
There are many puppets. Do you still think you have options?
Yes, the ones the corporate media fails to acknowledge. If they were puppets they'd be covered by the press.
Last election I voted Green Party, although since my daughter lives in Ohio I encouraged her to vote Obama. Ohio is a swing state, I support the Occupy movement, and the Republicans ran a corporate raiding, job killing 1%er from Wall Street who made millions on the suffering of others.
I won't vote Libertarian because they're only for giving the corporations and the rich assholes who run them the liberty to trample my rights, put me in an unsafe work environment, and make the air as filthy as it was before the EPA (as well as dismantling our already almost nonexistent safety nets).
I won't vote Constitution party because they want the US to be a Christian theocracy. Sorry but as a Christian I'm prohibited from forcing my morals on others ("do unto others). This is a secular nation with the right to worship anything you want, including Wicca, Satan, FSM, money (our country's primary religion) or nothing at all.
But I'd be stupid (except in the rare occasion that you're in a swing state and one of the two main candidates is a monster like Romney) to vote R or D because they want to put me in jail for smoking pot (I have arthritis and yeah, I like to get high). You have loved ones who smoke pot, why are you voting for people who want them in prison? That's just brain dead stupid.
Don't stay home on election day, vote for a loser and show your discontent with the status quo (that is, unless you like the NSA trolling through your email and phone records and want your children or parents or friends in jail).
Ran across your comment while metamoderating and modded you down for that shortened URL. Short URLs are not to be trusted, you could send people to goatse or even malware. It's OK in a sig because of space limitations, but completely unacceptable in a comment. If the link's not a disgusting troll repost the actual URL of whatever you're linking and don't use stupid URL shorteners in comments. I metamod almost daily and always mod short URLs as "troll"; I'm not stupid enough to click something suspicious like that.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, smokers smoke more heavily when drinking coffee (just like alcohol).
A correlation was shown, but with a 6 digit UID you've been here long enough to know that correlation does not necessarily mean causation. The possibilities:
Coffee causes early death (doubtful)
Early death causes coffee (impossible)
Something else causes both (most likely)
Coincidence (possible but unlikely)
"If a and b or correlated"
*facepalm* Someone slap me, I must need more coffee!
I should be dead, because I've been drinking a whole pot every day for over 40 years. But then, I'm in the middle of few Bell curves.
Perhaps there's no causation behind this correlation? Perhaps what kills you isn't the coffee (like you said humorously) but substituting coffee for sleep? If a and b or correlated, sometimes the causative factor is c which triggers both a and b.
I drink a lot of coffee, but I also sleep 7 to 9 hours a night. This needs further study.
Meanwhile, unless I'm mistaken, kids in Europe go to college for free. Meanwhile, some are calling for that here as well.
Next time you start thinking about how terrible Bush or Obama is, compare him to Grant, Harding, Buchanan, and Nixon.
Well, except Nixon I only know of those presidents from books. Nixon was bad; I voted for his election and against his reelection. Actually, IMO the only two Presidents in my lifetime who didn't suck were Eisenhower and Clinton, and I could be wrong about Eisenhower, since I was five months old when he was elected and only eight when he left office (and Clinton was far from perfect; Ruby Ridge and Waco). Kennedy and Ford weren't in office long enough to make much of a judgement about their efforts (Ford was the only President to never win a national election).
Another really bad President was Coolige, and my knowledge of him only comes from a history class and its textbook, and what my grandmother told me (she was born in 1903). The history books won't tell you what she said -- the roaring twenties only roared for the rich, everyone else had it very rough. The books do agree with her that it was Coolidge that caused the depression. And Grandma was a life-long Republican who voted against FDR in every election he was on the ballot.
Well, if you aren't interested in defending the rights of "bosses", who I assume to mean "employers", then there's that.
Employers are overrepresented, and have the means to defend their rights. Their employees do not.
The end result of that would be the confiscation of the people's property rights by putting the means of production into the hands of the government.
That came out of the blue, in no way do I support government owning the means of production. Everyone should have the right to start or buy a business, but business should not have the right to screw over their workers.
Mandating overtime pay means taking rights away from employers.
Yes, the "right" to screw employees.
You may scoff, but the EPA prevents people from doing anything with land features (like lakes or wetland) that is entirely contained within their property and doesn't harm anyone.
If you don't want to own a wetland, don't buy one.
Syntax, grammar, and spelling are intended to assist communication.
Exactly. Writing "the bank should loose money" when it should be "lose" completely changes the meaning of the sentence. Misspellings confuse and slow down and detract from comprehension when the reader doesn't move his lips when he reads.
Misuse of those rules to provide a service they are not, and have never been intended for (conveying how "smart", or how "valuable" the communication itself is) is not rational.
Of course it is. If you write like a third grader it's safe to assume you paid no attention in school and probably dropped out as soon as it was legal. I've noticed that folks who write like that also are factually incorrect most of the time as well. Why should I lend credence to the uneducated?
Drawing attention to incorrect use, as an excuse to ignore communication you find disfavorable, is pure hypocrisy.
Drawing attention to incorrect use is meant to be educational to the one you're correcting.
You are unwilling to finish reading something that does not meet your onerous preconceptions of value.
Correct.
You hypocritically misuse language rules while condemning others for a related infraction.
Nobody's perfect, but some of us at least make an effort.
You have clearly demonstrated your own lack of tolerance in intellectual matters
I'm not tolerant of ignorance disguised as knowledge.
You have clearly demonstrated that you are unable to approach the situation without subjective biases, and that you will cling to strawmen rather than actually "degrade yourself" to actually finish reading what was written.
I'm not going to wade through unreadable prose written by the uneducated. The uneducated cannot educate.
Which is correct: Jail, or Gaol.
Both. Language evolves, as anyone who's read ancient texts can attest. E.g., "hacker" used to mean someone who re-purposes hardware, or writes quick and dirty code. Now it means someone who breaks into computers. The rules do change from time to time.
But Mark Twain's works, over a hundred years old, are as readable as they were when they were written. A modern dropout's writing is not.
I realize that there is a disproportionate number of person on slashdot that give exceptional levels of percieved value to the "correct" employment of language, structure, and punctuation
Yes, readability. Reading someone who says "If you difficulty in comprehending what I had written, such as if I had used ambiguous kanguage that could potentially have many and possibly conflictory meanings" is like listening to someone who not only has a severe speech impediment, but mumbles as well. And many errors, like not knowing the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their, or whose and who's, or uses greengrocers' apostrophes, shows himself to be uneducated and probably barely literate.
If you can't easily communicate using the written word, shut the fuck up. I don't want to read your gibberish.
Y-you have three hands?! You're a Martian aren't you? Oh! Was that your mom in Total Recall?
No, he's a Motie.
Or do you claim that had Bush not been president 9/11 would not have happened? Had Bush not been president the deregulation of the banking industry started by Clinton would not have caused the banks to go nuts and crash the economy?
It would depend on who was President at the time. The FBI ignored its own agents who had warned of it. Had the FBI had a different director those clues may not have been ignored. As to the bankers, that was 100% Clinton's veto-proof congress' fault, and I doubt a different post-Clinton President could have done much... but an eloquent enough anti-wallstreet President might have swayed them (although I'm doubtful).
You still fail to redress Johnson's punishing of the south. There was a president (and congress) who intentionally set out to impose hardships on a significant set of the population.
I think historians agree that both Presidents named Johnson sucked. The postwar Johnson might have been as bad as Bush; Bush's Congress sucked, too.
How would a short URL defeat the lame filters? That seems backwards; a long URL of lowercase letters might possibly defeat the SHOUTING filter and the "not enough characters per line" filter. You have me puzzled.
Wink wink, nudge nudge
(I'm surprised nobody's said that yet.)
That was hilarious, thank you. Too bad Sheldon had mod points tonight.
even rabid christians and retailers hoping for some dollars for jesus
Firstly, Christians aren't clamoring for a longer Christmas season. Most Christians I know complain about how long it is. Secondly, retailers don't give two shits about Jesus, they worship money. Their holiday, when they worship THEIR god, is called "Black Friday".
The reality is that the vast majority of American's
are uneducated. In history as well as third grade punctuation.
Name another President that started with a budget surplus and ended with the biggest deficit in history, started TWO wars at the same time, and went into office in a boom and ended in a terrible economy?
Yes, Hoover went in during a boom and ended in a depression, other Presidents have had similar failures, but if there were any but Bush that had such a bad run I must have missed class that day. Bush was certainly the worst President in my 61 year lifetime. I thought I'd never see worse than Carter but Bush beat him hands down in his terrible stewardship.
You know, I think Sheldon's glow in the dark fish night lights would sell like hot cakes.
But I'm not lumping the Ls and Cs with the Rs. Each has its own distinct fatal flaws.
There's no more reason to than there is to post shortened URLs in the first place. Not going through the trouble and I shouldn't have to.
Actually, I'd like to see a labor party, one that would defend the rights of working people rather than their bosses. The right to a safe workplace, the right to clean air and water, etc.
If by "environmental-socialist theocracy" you mean strict environmental and labor laws, laws like the Europeans have mandating overtime be paid as such, that we have single payer health care, paid vacations of a decent length, a decent safety net so the poor don't have to steal from me, I wouldn't mind a bit.
Since the Gs are for legalizing drugs they are indeed for expansion of my rights. Truthfully, I haven't looked closely at their platform. What rights would they restrict?
I think you got 2 more perioids there than you need.
Better than!!! She's simply saying "end of story" or "the end."
I have to agree with your comment about the powerful, though.
Nuclear waste? Is Yucca Mountain pronounced "yucky?"
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
(BTW, if I had points you'd get one. +5, nail on head)
There are many puppets. Do you still think you have options?
Yes, the ones the corporate media fails to acknowledge. If they were puppets they'd be covered by the press.
Last election I voted Green Party, although since my daughter lives in Ohio I encouraged her to vote Obama. Ohio is a swing state, I support the Occupy movement, and the Republicans ran a corporate raiding, job killing 1%er from Wall Street who made millions on the suffering of others.
I won't vote Libertarian because they're only for giving the corporations and the rich assholes who run them the liberty to trample my rights, put me in an unsafe work environment, and make the air as filthy as it was before the EPA (as well as dismantling our already almost nonexistent safety nets).
I won't vote Constitution party because they want the US to be a Christian theocracy. Sorry but as a Christian I'm prohibited from forcing my morals on others ("do unto others). This is a secular nation with the right to worship anything you want, including Wicca, Satan, FSM, money (our country's primary religion) or nothing at all.
But I'd be stupid (except in the rare occasion that you're in a swing state and one of the two main candidates is a monster like Romney) to vote R or D because they want to put me in jail for smoking pot (I have arthritis and yeah, I like to get high). You have loved ones who smoke pot, why are you voting for people who want them in prison? That's just brain dead stupid.
Don't stay home on election day, vote for a loser and show your discontent with the status quo (that is, unless you like the NSA trolling through your email and phone records and want your children or parents or friends in jail).
NO VOTE IS WASTED.
Ran across your comment while metamoderating and modded you down for that shortened URL. Short URLs are not to be trusted, you could send people to goatse or even malware. It's OK in a sig because of space limitations, but completely unacceptable in a comment. If the link's not a disgusting troll repost the actual URL of whatever you're linking and don't use stupid URL shorteners in comments. I metamod almost daily and always mod short URLs as "troll"; I'm not stupid enough to click something suspicious like that.
It appears a slight change in the planetâ(TM)s surface luster has caused its temperature to rise.
Earth CO2 has nothing to do with it. There is no mechanism in play to cause both.