You can check his voting record. Besides, Ron Paul doesn't say crap because it's politically convenient, unlike the other flip-floppers you see running for President.
A specific charge was made against Ron Paul about sexuality and religion, yet no evidence was provided.
When I see AC, i tend to think they posted that way because they don't have an account. That should be the most obvious reason. (It's a Mensa thing. You know, outside-the-box kind of thinking.)
You could actually respond to the argument I gave instead of attacking a straw man. It's an intellectual honesty kind of thinking. In case you missed it, it's the rest of the paragraph after the part you quoted.
Is it not possible to do build a reputation by using your real name, or are you hiding like a coward, too?
There's a spectrum from full anonymity to full identification. A pseudonym is a middle ground that is in some ways cowardly, but useful if I want to talk about work situations, while still providing some of the benefits of a persistent identity.
The karma bullshit has turned this forum into a fucking popularity contest and I, for one, am tired of seeing the same fanbois and filesharing thieves modding each other's parroted arguments up.
There are certain issues, like filesharing, that Slashdot has a hive-mind on. Then again, there are lots of other issues where it doesn't. The reputation system has made Slashdot a much better place than what you normally get when everybody is anonymous. I'm not saying it's perfect, far from it, but there's a reason the goatse trolls and other idiots often post anonymously.
That depends: how did the courts fail in your scenario? Did they in fact fail, or is that just one opinion?
It's the opinion of a lot of people that, for example, the commerce clause has been abused and made a mockery of the constitution.
You're wanting to look up "separation of powers" and "checks and balances". Google can educate you better than I can.
I'm perfectly aware of the separation of powers, thank you very much. The question is do you just nod your head and agree or speak out against what you feel are bad decisions. You might want to look up the First Amendment. Google can education you on what I'm talking about.
When you're working on government funding projects and corresponding with people as part of your job, don't treat your email as personal. Even when I'm at work I write as if the boss may some day get a hold of it -- because by rights, they can, and if I engage in some stupidity I wouldn't blame somebody for forwarding it to the boss.
In this case, the "boss" is the people. That's what freedom of information acts are all about. Furthermore, these people are working on something that impacts worldwide economies. They should keep their nose clean, stick to the science, and be as transparent as possible. Instead they engaged in politics and tried to hide scientific details from the public.
And what happens when the courts utterly fail in doing their job? Should you just nod your head and agree? Or should you say these guys are full of shit and doing there jobs badly?
He's a politician, he'll violate all the Amendments that inconvenience him.
Do you realize that the guy is against federal bans on drugs? He's a Libertarian and the real deal. If there's any politician who would abide by the Constitution, and not just follow it when it's convenient, it's Ron Paul.
The constitution was a document for a simpler time. It's also not even close to being perfect.
Nobody said it was, and the founders knew it wasn't. That's why there's an official process to change it: amendments. How many times can this point be raised and subsequently ignored in the same thread?
I don't think Google spent enough time taking a truly awesome technology and researching/marketing use cases.
It seemed their big pitch was that if you opened an email and both parties were online you would automatically enter a Wave session and people could see you editing real-time. As a big fan of email, I hate that.
What I like about email is that it gives me time to compose my thoughts and somebody on the other end isn't sitting around waiting for my reply. It's the difference between chat and email.
No, the obvious reason I posted anonymously is because I don't have a Slashdot account.
It wasn't obvious from your post that you don't have an account. In fact, I'd say it's the opposite. The phrase, "Posting anon for obvious reasons," is a common Slashdot phrase for people with accounts who are posting something they are afraid to put their handle behind.
How about you, Raenex? Is that the name on your birth certificate, or are you hiding, like a coward, too?
Having a pseudonym, like pretty much everybody does here, allows you to build a reputation. That is why people will post anonymously sometimes even when they have a pseudonym.
Since they are the ones who actually know they're right
This is a very dangerous position to place yourself in as a scientist, especially when there is a lot of room for errors or uncertainty. It's also bad when you start engaging in propaganda because of your bias.
Whining about "stolen" email, which should have been made public in the first place, is misdirection. If the science is bad, then we need to find out what science is bad and why.
It is unfortunate that they didn't release the whole thing at once and appear to be holding back more for political gain.
Cold rational analysis shows that you could put a family of four on Mars for a few billion dollars.
Oh really? Where's your citation? I'll give you one, since you didn't supply any:
"Estimates of the cost of sending people to the red planet vary hugely, ranging from $20bn to $450bn. Other stumbling blocks include what to do if the mission should run into difficulties."
"The issue of how to properly protect the crew en route is also yet to be resolved. The craft would be exposed to high levels of solar radiation for the duration of the journey, and would be at particular risk in the event of a coronal mass ejection, or solar storm. NASA says shielding still has to be developed."
Sustaining them would be more difficult, but probably not cost more than a hundred billion.
Oh, sustaining them is extra? What were you going to do, just leave your family of four there to die? And I'm sure you've got a "cold rational analysis" of what it would take to sustain a family of four on Mars, right?
Of course, sustaining a family of four on Mars is just the beginning. The ultimate goal is to have self-sustaining colonies.
Holy fucking jesus christ on a rotating spit, how many times do we have to say that IT ISN'T A TWO PARTY SYSTEM.
It's just never going to change as long as there's a "lesser evil" in play. It's extremely difficult to get past the inertia of the two parties to vote for a third.
This was demonstrated very clearly in 2000 with Gore versus Bush. Despite both parties having common establishment positions, they also differ on a lot of positions. If you thought Gore was the lesser evil, then voting for Nader in this extremely close election was foolish.
What really needs to change is the voting system. It shouldn't be a penalty to vote for a guy like Nader and then end up with Bush. Practically any system that seeks to address this would be better than what we have in place.
I'm just pointing out the "young earth" people aren't totally off base. But the Genesis story has more problems besides "young earth", like the fossil record or cosmology.
He is simply saying that these two sets of observed data seem to conflict and he believes that the data from the 1987a supernova is more reliable.
He said, "I am not just sceptical but quite openly dismissive of any claims of superluminal neutrinos."
Which means he has closed his mind to new experiments and evidence. In a later post, he then links to a blog which talks about the Supernova experiment, but even that blog had the good sense to add this:
"*Addendum* There are of course loopholes to this argument, for instance there may be higher order quantum gravity effects which violate Lorentz invariance [3]. Either way the result will be hotly debated - is it an unknown systematic error or some exciting hint at new physics?"
There's a reason why they believe in a young Earth based on the Bible. The Bible said that the Earth was created in six days, and the first man and woman on the sixth, and then gives a genealogy.
Science has relegated this to mythology, something that even the Pope will say is not to be taken literally.
Slashdot Mirror
You can check his voting record. Besides, Ron Paul doesn't say crap because it's politically convenient, unlike the other flip-floppers you see running for President.
A specific charge was made against Ron Paul about sexuality and religion, yet no evidence was provided.
When I see AC, i tend to think they posted that way because they don't have an account. That should be the most obvious reason. (It's a Mensa thing. You know, outside-the-box kind of thinking.)
You could actually respond to the argument I gave instead of attacking a straw man. It's an intellectual honesty kind of thinking. In case you missed it, it's the rest of the paragraph after the part you quoted.
Is it not possible to do build a reputation by using your real name, or are you hiding like a coward, too?
There's a spectrum from full anonymity to full identification. A pseudonym is a middle ground that is in some ways cowardly, but useful if I want to talk about work situations, while still providing some of the benefits of a persistent identity.
The karma bullshit has turned this forum into a fucking popularity contest and I, for one, am tired of seeing the same fanbois and filesharing thieves modding each other's parroted arguments up.
There are certain issues, like filesharing, that Slashdot has a hive-mind on. Then again, there are lots of other issues where it doesn't. The reputation system has made Slashdot a much better place than what you normally get when everybody is anonymous. I'm not saying it's perfect, far from it, but there's a reason the goatse trolls and other idiots often post anonymously.
That depends: how did the courts fail in your scenario? Did they in fact fail, or is that just one opinion?
It's the opinion of a lot of people that, for example, the commerce clause has been abused and made a mockery of the constitution.
You're wanting to look up "separation of powers" and "checks and balances". Google can educate you better than I can.
I'm perfectly aware of the separation of powers, thank you very much. The question is do you just nod your head and agree or speak out against what you feel are bad decisions. You might want to look up the First Amendment. Google can education you on what I'm talking about.
That's fine for online brainstorming, but they were talking about replacing email.
When you're working on government funding projects and corresponding with people as part of your job, don't treat your email as personal. Even when I'm at work I write as if the boss may some day get a hold of it -- because by rights, they can, and if I engage in some stupidity I wouldn't blame somebody for forwarding it to the boss.
In this case, the "boss" is the people. That's what freedom of information acts are all about. Furthermore, these people are working on something that impacts worldwide economies. They should keep their nose clean, stick to the science, and be as transparent as possible. Instead they engaged in politics and tried to hide scientific details from the public.
I'm not your buddy, guy.
Maybe you can provide a citation where that's true.
And what happens when the courts utterly fail in doing their job? Should you just nod your head and agree? Or should you say these guys are full of shit and doing there jobs badly?
He's a politician, he'll violate all the Amendments that inconvenience him.
Do you realize that the guy is against federal bans on drugs? He's a Libertarian and the real deal. If there's any politician who would abide by the Constitution, and not just follow it when it's convenient, it's Ron Paul.
The constitution was a document for a simpler time. It's also not even close to being perfect.
Nobody said it was, and the founders knew it wasn't. That's why there's an official process to change it: amendments. How many times can this point be raised and subsequently ignored in the same thread?
I don't think Google spent enough time taking a truly awesome technology and researching/marketing use cases.
It seemed their big pitch was that if you opened an email and both parties were online you would automatically enter a Wave session and people could see you editing real-time. As a big fan of email, I hate that.
What I like about email is that it gives me time to compose my thoughts and somebody on the other end isn't sitting around waiting for my reply. It's the difference between chat and email.
No, the obvious reason I posted anonymously is because I don't have a Slashdot account.
It wasn't obvious from your post that you don't have an account. In fact, I'd say it's the opposite. The phrase, "Posting anon for obvious reasons," is a common Slashdot phrase for people with accounts who are posting something they are afraid to put their handle behind.
How about you, Raenex? Is that the name on your birth certificate, or are you hiding, like a coward, too?
Having a pseudonym, like pretty much everybody does here, allows you to build a reputation. That is why people will post anonymously sometimes even when they have a pseudonym.
Since they are the ones who actually know they're right
This is a very dangerous position to place yourself in as a scientist, especially when there is a lot of room for errors or uncertainty. It's also bad when you start engaging in propaganda because of your bias.
Whining about "stolen" email, which should have been made public in the first place, is misdirection. If the science is bad, then we need to find out what science is bad and why.
It is unfortunate that they didn't release the whole thing at once and appear to be holding back more for political gain.
Remarkable.
Posting anon for obvious reasons.
Yes, it's obvious. It's right in the name: Anonymous Coward
http://grep.law.harvard.edu/articles/02/08/08/0923231.shtml
"Passport stores users' passwords and credit card numbers on Microsoft computers to make Web surfing easier."
Oh yeah, I remember Microsoft Passport. It was a pure power-play to tie their desktop monopoly to eCommerce. Thankfully it bombed.
Cold rational analysis shows that you could put a family of four on Mars for a few billion dollars.
Oh really? Where's your citation? I'll give you one, since you didn't supply any:
"Estimates of the cost of sending people to the red planet vary hugely, ranging from $20bn to $450bn. Other stumbling blocks include what to do if the mission should run into difficulties."
"The issue of how to properly protect the crew en route is also yet to be resolved. The craft would be exposed to high levels of solar radiation for the duration of the journey, and would be at particular risk in the event of a coronal mass ejection, or solar storm. NASA says shielding still has to be developed."
Sustaining them would be more difficult, but probably not cost more than a hundred billion.
Oh, sustaining them is extra? What were you going to do, just leave your family of four there to die? And I'm sure you've got a "cold rational analysis" of what it would take to sustain a family of four on Mars, right?
Of course, sustaining a family of four on Mars is just the beginning. The ultimate goal is to have self-sustaining colonies.
You've got a lot of downmods and backlash, but I agree with you. Workfare makes a lot more sense than welfare.
[..] breaking just about every rule of thoughtfulness and elegance known to God and man. And look where that got them: pretty damn far.
Worse is Better
The whole concept of "obvious to a person skilled in the art" has been ground into the dirt for 20+ years now.
Yup. Before it was patenting X, "on the Internet". Now it's patenting X, "on the mobile".
SO DON'T VOTE FOR EITHER!
Holy fucking jesus christ on a rotating spit, how many times do we have to say that IT ISN'T A TWO PARTY SYSTEM.
It's just never going to change as long as there's a "lesser evil" in play. It's extremely difficult to get past the inertia of the two parties to vote for a third.
This was demonstrated very clearly in 2000 with Gore versus Bush. Despite both parties having common establishment positions, they also differ on a lot of positions. If you thought Gore was the lesser evil, then voting for Nader in this extremely close election was foolish.
What really needs to change is the voting system. It shouldn't be a penalty to vote for a guy like Nader and then end up with Bush. Practically any system that seeks to address this would be better than what we have in place.
I'm just pointing out the "young earth" people aren't totally off base. But the Genesis story has more problems besides "young earth", like the fossil record or cosmology.
He is simply saying that these two sets of observed data seem to conflict and he believes that the data from the 1987a supernova is more reliable.
He said, "I am not just sceptical but quite openly dismissive of any claims of superluminal neutrinos."
Which means he has closed his mind to new experiments and evidence. In a later post, he then links to a blog which talks about the Supernova experiment, but even that blog had the good sense to add this:
"*Addendum* There are of course loopholes to this argument, for instance there may be higher order quantum gravity effects which violate Lorentz invariance [3]. Either way the result will be hotly debated - is it an unknown systematic error or some exciting hint at new physics?"
The Bible does not list an age for the Universe, nor even for planet Earth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism
There's a reason why they believe in a young Earth based on the Bible. The Bible said that the Earth was created in six days, and the first man and woman on the sixth, and then gives a genealogy.
Science has relegated this to mythology, something that even the Pope will say is not to be taken literally.