Maybe it's not wearing the jeans that causes them to be worn out, but overzealous spin cycles in the washer. That may explain why the jeans are still in one piece.
You are right; Cantor's office being shot at had nothing to do with rhetoric.
"A preliminary investigation shows that a bullet was fired into the air and struck the window in a downward direction, landing on the floor about a foot from the window," the Richmond police department said in a statement. "The round struck with enough force to break the windowpane but did not penetrate the window blinds."
Of course the rhetoric is to blame. We aren't treating our political opponents as humans, we're treating them like tyrants who require a "second amendment solution." And then we act surprised when a few of the more unhinged among us don't notice the wink.
I find it slightly ironic that you're using another example of violence inspired by incendiary rhetoric as proof that there isn't a problem with the tone of politics today.
It's also disingenuous to suggest anything about what the founders did or did not want for us today. They wanted an elected legislature writing laws that an elected executive will then sign and carry out. Last time I checked, the US elected Democrats and they passed a bill that was signed into law by the President. This seems to me to be exactly what the founders wanted.
BTW, you should call it Baucuscare, because that's who actually wrote the bill. Or rather, one of his aides did. But I guess Baucuscare doesn't have the ring necessary for you to perpetuate your favored propaganda.
I agree that Sarah Palin's map didn't drive Jared Loughner to shoot Gabrielle Giffords.
However, folks should be careful about using this specific lack of causation as evidence that violent rhetoric is not excessively incendiary. This is, after all, the same Gabrielle Giffords who had a brick thrown through her office window after the health care vote. I bet violent rhetoric was responsible for that one.
Point taken on the prison camp. Pardon my ignorance for being a law-abiding citizen who had not previously had the need to learn such details about how our prison industry works.
However, I still stand by the belief that a young man with no prior criminal record, who engaged in "hacking" that resulted in no monetary damages and minimal emotional damages does not need to be removed from society, even if it is a minimum security prison camp. I believe the judge in this case agreed when he recommended a halfway house, which I believe is more like probation.
Had this been his second hacking, or had his hacking resulted in actual monetary damages, then perhaps I can see sending him away. However, he is no Kevin Mitnick or TJX Hacker.
Consider the nature of a security question. You forgot a password, and you need a way to remind yourself.
Consider the nature of a riddle taped to a safe. You forgot the combination, and you need a way to remind yourself....seems like a sound analogy to me.
In fact, why don't you publish a paper? And get it peer-reviewed? Then, you can become famous for showing that climate scientists are getting it all wrong.
Although I must admit there is a certain irony in using "pavement holds heat" as part of an argument against global warming.
A little late on the reply...but like the guy above you a few posts, you also pulled out a straw man. I never said we should spend nothing on defense.
However, the US spends almost as much on defense as every other nation on earth combined.
I know it helps you rationalize the world when you paint it in a black-and-white, good-vs-evil sort of way. But you should really look into exactly how much money we spend on "defense". Maybe then you might realize that we're making way, way more guns than butter.
I know this is a bit late, but I want to call you out on your straw man. I never said "spend nothing on military/defense".
The US spends almost as much on "defense" as every other country on earth combined.
By your straw man logic, if doors are good, then double doors are doublegood. Does that make four doors doubleplusgood? Why, let's make sure that we have as many doors as there are in every other nation on earth combined!
(warning: the pdf is 24 MB, so it takes a significant amount of time to download)
Studies that have looked at hemispheric and global scales conclude that any urban-related trend is an order of magnitude smaller than decadal and longer time-scale trends evident in the series (e.g., Jones et al., 1990; Peterson et al., 1999). This result could partly be attributed to the omission from the gridded data set of a small number of sites (1%) with clear urban-related warming trends. In a worldwide set of about 270 stations, Parker (2004, 2006) noted that warming trends in night minimum temperatures over the period 1950 to 2000 were not enhanced on calm nights, which would be the time most likely to be affected by urban warming. Thus, the global land warming trend discussed is very unlikely to be influenced significantly by increasing urbanisation (Parker, 2006).... Accordingly, this assessment adds the same level of urban warming uncertainty as in the TAR: 0.006C per decade since 1900 for land, and 0.002C per decade since 1900 for blended land with ocean, as ocean UHI is zero.
He waited until Sweden gave the OK for him to leave their country, and there were no charges against him when he left the country.
He knew this wasn't over, so when he got to the UK, he gave the police his information, so there would be no manhunt if charges were refiled.
Oh yeah, he also turned himself in. Because the best place to run and hide is Scotland Yard.
Whoever modded the parent insightful needs their mod points taken away.
BTW, Assange may be a douche for playin' the game with some of his volunteers...but chances are that your favorite musicians played many more games with their groupies.
Thanks for the example; I hope you are rewarded by being modded up. You may not be an expert, but I'm not even an amateur, so at least I can digest your example.
Reducing the spread increases liquidity...check. What about stocks that pay dividends; you're supposed to hold on to them long-term, so does a narrow spread benefit those stocks at all?
That's not how I read HFT. It sounds like skimming to me. Perhaps you could provide more details so I can understand what exactly you mean by "bid-ask spread", and how exactly HFT lowers it by holding onto stocks for a few hundred milliseconds.
Short selling, yeah, I can see how short selling can be useful for instigating corrections to over-valued stocks. But HFT? Seems a lot like "I can buy big, fast computers and a high-speed connection to the stock exchange, so I get to squeeze some value out of the stocks just before you buy them."
"This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children."
It's not just about money, but opportunity costs as well. People have to spend time designing, building, and dropping bombs that could be spent doing other things.
People also use resources to build aircraft carriers and bombs, and some of those resources are lost. And some resources are destroyed when those bombs are dropped.
Yes, it is local warming. However, if you look at the pretty picture in the link, you'll notice that there's a lot more local warming than local cooling.
When there's more local warming than local cooling, what do you think the global average will be?
No, you get multiple areas of local cooling. A more thorough treatment might reveal that although multiple areas cool down, more areas may be warmer, and significantly more warmer than the other areas are cooler.
Hey, look at that...someone already did this for us. Some places got cooler (UK and Australia among them), lots of places got warmer.
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.
The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement.
We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.
- Dwight D. Eisenhower; excerpt from The Chance for Peace
America's a pretty big place, with all sorts of people in it. It is filled with individual histories that defy any statistical measurement of personality. You can, perhaps, speak of general demographics...and I allege that you will see a lot of the cold shoulder types are older, get-off-my-lawn folks. Younger folks tend to be more tolerant. Rural folks also enjoy their isolation, while urban folks don't mind others as much.
Life is also pretty stressful for the average middle class American, and the media tends to exploit the xenophobia of the older, rural folks.
The women then withdrew consent, appealing to him to stop. Assange did not stop.
It's possible to give consent back. I'm sure once they revoked consent, his words weren't quite so much "I am not stopping", but more like "awww come on, are you sure?" If he requested consent, and they gave it back, he did nothing wrong.
Now, going by the Daily Mail post from OP (I normally wouldn't trust the Daily Mail but there are pretty much zero details anywhere), it looks like the first woman was quite okay with what happened when it happened, because she threw a party for him. She only got upset with him once she found out he slept with someone else.
The second woman...her case is odd. The first time he wore a rubber, the second time he didn't. She asked him to wear one, and he said no....but that can't be all there is to it. Perhaps he says no...and continues to move closer. Does she say "no condom means no sex"? Does she look meekly at him, and say nothing? Does she back away? Does she give in to his counter-demands?
When considering what happened, you should note that they went out to breakfast the next day, and she bought him a ticket back to Stockholm...back to the first woman.
This is pretty much what I expected; embarrassing, shameful, regrettable...but hardly anything like what a reasonable person considers rape. To label his actions as such is really to do a disservice to rape victims.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe it's not wearing the jeans that causes them to be worn out, but overzealous spin cycles in the washer. That may explain why the jeans are still in one piece.
You're right, international relations isn't kindergarten. Of course, it doesn't help that the US has a long history of being the school bully.
Iran Contra sound familiar?
Even further back...the Shah of Iran?
The mujahideen of Afghanistan?
Selling Saddam the chemical weapons that we had him hanged for using?
The list goes on, but somehow I doubt that any revelation about the crazy fucked up shit we did to other nations will do anything to change your mind.
You are right; Cantor's office being shot at had nothing to do with rhetoric.
"A preliminary investigation shows that a bullet was fired into the air and struck the window in a downward direction, landing on the floor about a foot from the window," the Richmond police department said in a statement. "The round struck with enough force to break the windowpane but did not penetrate the window blinds."
Bullet That Hit Eric Cantor's Office From Random Gunfire - http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20001283-503544.html
Of course the rhetoric is to blame. We aren't treating our political opponents as humans, we're treating them like tyrants who require a "second amendment solution." And then we act surprised when a few of the more unhinged among us don't notice the wink.
I find it slightly ironic that you're using another example of violence inspired by incendiary rhetoric as proof that there isn't a problem with the tone of politics today.
It's also disingenuous to suggest anything about what the founders did or did not want for us today. They wanted an elected legislature writing laws that an elected executive will then sign and carry out. Last time I checked, the US elected Democrats and they passed a bill that was signed into law by the President. This seems to me to be exactly what the founders wanted.
BTW, you should call it Baucuscare, because that's who actually wrote the bill. Or rather, one of his aides did. But I guess Baucuscare doesn't have the ring necessary for you to perpetuate your favored propaganda.
I agree that Sarah Palin's map didn't drive Jared Loughner to shoot Gabrielle Giffords.
However, folks should be careful about using this specific lack of causation as evidence that violent rhetoric is not excessively incendiary. This is, after all, the same Gabrielle Giffords who had a brick thrown through her office window after the health care vote. I bet violent rhetoric was responsible for that one.
Point taken on the prison camp. Pardon my ignorance for being a law-abiding citizen who had not previously had the need to learn such details about how our prison industry works.
However, I still stand by the belief that a young man with no prior criminal record, who engaged in "hacking" that resulted in no monetary damages and minimal emotional damages does not need to be removed from society, even if it is a minimum security prison camp. I believe the judge in this case agreed when he recommended a halfway house, which I believe is more like probation.
Had this been his second hacking, or had his hacking resulted in actual monetary damages, then perhaps I can see sending him away. However, he is no Kevin Mitnick or TJX Hacker.
Straw man. No one says he should be an exception to punishment.
Everyone is saying "this man is not a danger to society and does not belong in prison with violent criminals"
Actually, only your car analogy is the bad one.
Consider the nature of a security question. You forgot a password, and you need a way to remind yourself.
Consider the nature of a riddle taped to a safe. You forgot the combination, and you need a way to remind yourself. ...seems like a sound analogy to me.
Go ahead, call BS.
In fact, why don't you publish a paper? And get it peer-reviewed? Then, you can become famous for showing that climate scientists are getting it all wrong.
Although I must admit there is a certain irony in using "pavement holds heat" as part of an argument against global warming.
A little late on the reply...but like the guy above you a few posts, you also pulled out a straw man. I never said we should spend nothing on defense.
However, the US spends almost as much on defense as every other nation on earth combined.
I know it helps you rationalize the world when you paint it in a black-and-white, good-vs-evil sort of way. But you should really look into exactly how much money we spend on "defense". Maybe then you might realize that we're making way, way more guns than butter.
I know this is a bit late, but I want to call you out on your straw man. I never said "spend nothing on military/defense".
The US spends almost as much on "defense" as every other country on earth combined.
By your straw man logic, if doors are good, then double doors are doublegood. Does that make four doors doubleplusgood? Why, let's make sure that we have as many doors as there are in every other nation on earth combined!
Have any of you noticed that every year they use a different set of reporting stations to "show" that it's the hottest year?
[citation needed]
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter3.pdf
Page 244
(warning: the pdf is 24 MB, so it takes a significant amount of time to download)
Studies that have looked at hemispheric and global scales conclude that any urban-related trend is an order of magnitude smaller than decadal and longer time-scale trends evident in the series (e.g., Jones et al., 1990; Peterson et al., 1999). This result could partly be attributed to the omission from the gridded data set of a small number of sites (1%) with clear urban-related warming trends. In a worldwide set of about 270 stations, Parker (2004, 2006) noted that warming trends in night minimum temperatures over the period 1950 to 2000 were not enhanced on calm nights, which would be the time most likely to be affected by urban warming. Thus, the global land warming trend discussed is very unlikely to be influenced significantly by increasing urbanisation (Parker, 2006). ... Accordingly, this assessment adds the same level of urban warming uncertainty as in the TAR: 0.006C per decade since 1900 for land, and 0.002C per decade since 1900 for blended land with ocean, as ocean UHI is zero.
He waited until Sweden gave the OK for him to leave their country, and there were no charges against him when he left the country.
He knew this wasn't over, so when he got to the UK, he gave the police his information, so there would be no manhunt if charges were refiled.
Oh yeah, he also turned himself in. Because the best place to run and hide is Scotland Yard.
Whoever modded the parent insightful needs their mod points taken away.
BTW, Assange may be a douche for playin' the game with some of his volunteers...but chances are that your favorite musicians played many more games with their groupies.
Thanks for the example; I hope you are rewarded by being modded up. You may not be an expert, but I'm not even an amateur, so at least I can digest your example.
Reducing the spread increases liquidity...check. What about stocks that pay dividends; you're supposed to hold on to them long-term, so does a narrow spread benefit those stocks at all?
No offense, but if you had given me a real answer, perhaps I might have learned something.
That's not how I read HFT. It sounds like skimming to me. Perhaps you could provide more details so I can understand what exactly you mean by "bid-ask spread", and how exactly HFT lowers it by holding onto stocks for a few hundred milliseconds.
Short selling, yeah, I can see how short selling can be useful for instigating corrections to over-valued stocks. But HFT? Seems a lot like "I can buy big, fast computers and a high-speed connection to the stock exchange, so I get to squeeze some value out of the stocks just before you buy them."
It does take the quantities into account. The size of the dot correlates with the change in temperature.
"This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children."
It's not just about money, but opportunity costs as well. People have to spend time designing, building, and dropping bombs that could be spent doing other things.
People also use resources to build aircraft carriers and bombs, and some of those resources are lost. And some resources are destroyed when those bombs are dropped.
Yes, it is local warming. However, if you look at the pretty picture in the link, you'll notice that there's a lot more local warming than local cooling.
When there's more local warming than local cooling, what do you think the global average will be?
No, you get multiple areas of local cooling. A more thorough treatment might reveal that although multiple areas cool down, more areas may be warmer, and significantly more warmer than the other areas are cooler.
Hey, look at that...someone already did this for us. Some places got cooler (UK and Australia among them), lots of places got warmer.
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.
The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement.
We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.
- Dwight D. Eisenhower; excerpt from The Chance for Peace
Technically, the coldest winter in 300 years in the UK might be an example of local cooling, not global.
America's a pretty big place, with all sorts of people in it. It is filled with individual histories that defy any statistical measurement of personality. You can, perhaps, speak of general demographics...and I allege that you will see a lot of the cold shoulder types are older, get-off-my-lawn folks. Younger folks tend to be more tolerant. Rural folks also enjoy their isolation, while urban folks don't mind others as much.
Life is also pretty stressful for the average middle class American, and the media tends to exploit the xenophobia of the older, rural folks.
The women then withdrew consent, appealing to him to stop. Assange did not stop.
It's possible to give consent back. I'm sure once they revoked consent, his words weren't quite so much "I am not stopping", but more like "awww come on, are you sure?" If he requested consent, and they gave it back, he did nothing wrong.
Now, going by the Daily Mail post from OP (I normally wouldn't trust the Daily Mail but there are pretty much zero details anywhere), it looks like the first woman was quite okay with what happened when it happened, because she threw a party for him. She only got upset with him once she found out he slept with someone else.
The second woman...her case is odd. The first time he wore a rubber, the second time he didn't. She asked him to wear one, and he said no. ...but that can't be all there is to it. Perhaps he says no...and continues to move closer. Does she say "no condom means no sex"? Does she look meekly at him, and say nothing? Does she back away? Does she give in to his counter-demands?
When considering what happened, you should note that they went out to breakfast the next day, and she bought him a ticket back to Stockholm...back to the first woman.
This is pretty much what I expected; embarrassing, shameful, regrettable...but hardly anything like what a reasonable person considers rape. To label his actions as such is really to do a disservice to rape victims.