Signal to noise ratio. Some information is worthless, or essentially so, and not deserving of inclusion because it falls in the "noise" part of the spectrum.
The goal if Wikipedia isn't to collect EVERYTHING. Some things just have no business being referenced.
It's one thing to be upset about transparency (and your exposition on the value of transparency leads me to believe you didn't read the last part of my post) but it's something else entirely to take the claims of prisoners at face value.
"America's an absolute discrace"
What's the point of that? How does that elevate the discussion? How do comments like that do anything to help with understanding?
What I always think about when discussing these cases, and you probably should too, is that "there are no guilty men in prison". In other words, prisoners say shit that isn't true.
Now, I understand there is a lot of anti-US sentiment in the world, some of well deserved, but when did people start taking prisoner's accounts as gospel.
Prisoners lie, we know that. How are they suddenly credible?
And please don't take this as defense of Bush, etc. That wasn't the point, please don't respond to that.
I just want to understand why people are in such a rush to believe things that could well be fabrications.
The answer, of course, is more transparency. I think until we have that, the "truth" about what is happening at Guantanamo is impossible to know.
Rather retired, it was his underlings that got fired.
It would have made a much stronger statement if they had fired him, but they didn't.
From wiki
"the controversy has been dubbed by some as "Memogate" and "Rathergate." Following an independent investigation commissioned by CBS, CBS fired story producer Mary Mapes and asked three other producers connected with the story to resign. It is unclear whether or not Rather's retirement was directly caused by this incident, although many believe that he had to step down a year earlier than planned."
I work with geologists, glaciologists, climatologists, and meteorologists all days, and there are several signs that warming is occuring- the most convincing being the melt of tropical glaciers, of which all of them are melting."
No, they're not. And yours is a perfect example of why this subject is so divisive. If you genuinely are a grad student in atmospheric sciences, then you'd know that not all glaciers are melting.
So, either you're lying or you're a poor student. Either way, you're wrong.
"Does the fact that Canadians pollute mean that it is OK for the USA to pollute ?"
No one said that. They were asking why you have never bothered to hammer Canada for their inefficiency.
And even though I haven't read any of your history, I'd bet my first born child that you've NEVER hammered Canada for their inefficiency.
So spread the blame around, or give a better explanation of why you choose to single out the US (I should say ADMIT why you single out the US, because we all know why, we're just having fun watching you make silly excuses).
If you were complaining about something important, I'd have your back.
But all your complaining (and in this thread YOU have done an assload of complaining) and your transparent attempts to make it a "free speech" issue are just dumb.
How many people don't have a DVR? Then this service is perfect for them, especially if they don't want to pay for anything. And you know that, you just like to whine.
But just in case you really ARE simply exercising your right to free speech, keep in mind, when fools like you go around abusing their rights, that makes life hard for everyone.
Stop bitching, and PLEASE stop acting like you're doing it out of patriotism or social responsibility.
Before claiming you'd researched it. Had you done so, you'd realize that right in the first paragraph, it says this
"The saber-tooth morphology is an excellent example of convergent evolution as it occurred repeatedly and independently in at least four distinct mammalian groups."
"More poor posting just brimful of ad hominem goodness"
How surprising that you're a liar, and a hypocrite.
As for the ad hominem, quote it.
You'll find that once again, you're ignorance is easily discovered.
As for predicting my behavior, take a guess as to where I think your opinion belongs.
And you never refuted me, just resorted to your ad hominems, over and over, just as I stated, like a child having a tantrum.
I quoted facts, gave a source, and could easily direct you to more. You lied, made up facts, and accused me of a logical fallacy that you clearly don;t understand, or you're realize THERE ISN'T ANY AD HOMINEM.
But at least you're consistently ignorant.
It's not your fault though, I understand some people are so wrapped up in the importance of their opinion that they resort to just about any type of shameful behavior to prevent others from noticing their ignorance.
Why do you allow yourself to sink to such depths?
Sad really, but it doesn't surprise me one bit. I should have know from the vast overstatement and tone of arrogance and inflexibility that you'd act that way. I work with children you see, so I recognize the behaviors when they show themselves.
But you do need to look up ad hominem. You sound like that much more ridiculous using a term you don't understand, then accusing others of using them when you continuously do so yourself.
How empty and pathetic is your life that you have to follow me around and make moronic comments?
How sad. Really, your mother would be proud that the sum total of useful input from you is to toss out insults becaue someone demonstrated that you're full of shit.
And really, it's even more sad that you resorted to this for such a reason. I mean, what the hell is missing from your life that you need to go around klying about what you know, then insulting people who show you're an idiot and have no idea what the fuck you're talking about?
"Now, are you seriously going to sit there and suggest that we should just keep on pumping greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere until we know exactly how things work?"
Did I say that? No I didn't, so why are you resorting to straw men? Why are you putting words in my mouth?
"Maybe you should think about it the other way: that we should stop pumping greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere until we know how it works!"
Where did I make any suggestion at all about what to do? Why are you resorting to straw men? Why are you putting words in my mouth (again)?
You're the classic example of the wrong person to discuss this. Someone who has made up their mind. You think that you know the answer to the problem, but you don't, you're just incredibly fucking arrogant and assume you do.
The fact is that we have an incomplete understanding of what is happening with our atmosphere.
I don't want self-important fools like you dictating the course of events here. Our goal should be to figure out what the hell is happening and make corrections based on solid science, not on ignorant self assured ideas about what is happening.
Every time a study like this comes out, someone spouts off about SUVs and oil, and coal, and then dozens of others spout off in agreement.
And not a single one of them admits that they don't know what coal, and SUVs and oil are doing to the atmosphere.
And you're one of them.
If you REALLY care about the environment, if you REALLY care about the future of the earth and the human race, you'd be responsible enough to admit that our focus should be research, and that any talk of intervention is premature and irresponsible.
"There are religious nuts, or creationists, and biologists."
And there are people who believe something else entirely happened. Or some version that isn't either of the above, but has elements of each.
Your post very much reminds me of a 4 year old stamping their feet screaming "NU-UH! NU-UH! NUUU-UHHHH!" You overstated your position, and when called on it chose to retain the patently ridiculous assertion that there are only creationists and biologists.
But you're still wrong, no matter how many times you ignore the evidence, and no matter how often you stamp your feet and hold your breath. Reapeat the same incorrect assertion all you want, it won;t be right no matter how loud or how often you spout it.
As for the UID crap, what a colossally stupid thing to pay attention to. Are you some kind of UID bigot, that you actually look at the UID and make judgements based on it? That's really sad. (lurking since 99, and you'll never know if it's true or not)
"hypocrisy Audio pronunciation of "hypocrisy" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (h-pkr-s) n. pl. hypocrisies
1. The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.
2. An act or instance of such falseness."
You did it, I didn't. That was pretty snippy, but it just made you look like even more of a cunt, and even better, wasn't even accurate. Now that you're a little smarter thanks to me, how about instead of being such a dick you answer the question?
Why were you complaining to the mods that I was complaining to the mods?
Why weren't they prosecuted if they were thieves? That's a criminal court's jurisdiction, not a civil court's.
"The little morons took something that wasn't theirs with the intent to cause harm"
What harm? He was embarassed, and frankly, if you think that's worthy of wasting a CIVIL court's time, then I'm wasting my time with you.
Here's what really happened. Rich brat does something stupid, tapes it, it gets out, he's embarassed, rich brat's mom and dad give him what he wants (just like they always have) and files suit. Rich kid's parents have enough money to bleed other kids parents dry, so they settle.
You might not like it, and you can make up all the stupid justifications for why you feel how you feel, but all you've done is support a rich spoiled brat abusing the courts to get something his parents never gave him and can't buy him. Self respect.
And even after it's over, he's the spoiled brat "Star Wars" kid, only now instead of being funny, he's that asshole who sued because he was embarrassed.
But you're the guy who claimed he read the Star Wars kid article and flamed me because I didn't.
And if you had read the article, you would have realized that what you claimed was stated in the article clearly isn't, and in fact the opposite is stated.
So this guy might not be citing his sources, but you're a liar.
Nothing that happens at school will force someone to leave school unless they choose to. Period, end of discussion.
You can try all the ridiculous, inflammatory analogies you want, but it won;t help because you can't answer this question without admitting the kid chose to leave.
Why did he leave school?
And as I've said before, nothing you say will change the fact that he did what he did as a reaction to other people. He chose to react that way.
Slashdot Mirror
Signal to noise ratio. Some information is worthless, or essentially so, and not deserving of inclusion because it falls in the "noise" part of the spectrum.
The goal if Wikipedia isn't to collect EVERYTHING. Some things just have no business being referenced.
Thanks, but you didn't answer my question.
It's one thing to be upset about transparency (and your exposition on the value of transparency leads me to believe you didn't read the last part of my post) but it's something else entirely to take the claims of prisoners at face value.
"America's an absolute discrace"
What's the point of that? How does that elevate the discussion? How do comments like that do anything to help with understanding?
What I always think about when discussing these cases, and you probably should too, is that "there are no guilty men in prison". In other words, prisoners say shit that isn't true.
Now, I understand there is a lot of anti-US sentiment in the world, some of well deserved, but when did people start taking prisoner's accounts as gospel.
Prisoners lie, we know that. How are they suddenly credible?
And please don't take this as defense of Bush, etc. That wasn't the point, please don't respond to that.
I just want to understand why people are in such a rush to believe things that could well be fabrications.
The answer, of course, is more transparency. I think until we have that, the "truth" about what is happening at Guantanamo is impossible to know.
"Glaciers and ice shelfs are melting. Everywhere. Now."
m l/content/factsheets/oldreports/glaciers2.html
D =3504064&thesection=news&thesubsection=general
h tml
Nope.
http://archive.greenpeace.org/climate/arctic99/ht
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyI
http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF16/1678.
I appreciate how attached you are to your opinions. Now, stop making up facts to support them, like ALL glaciers are melting NOW, and we can talk.
But you won't. You're too attached to what you think to bother with what the facts are.
And that first link? It's from Greenpeace. Question their bias, please. I could use a good laugh.
They're not ALL melting. Educate yourself.
Rather retired, it was his underlings that got fired.
It would have made a much stronger statement if they had fired him, but they didn't.
From wiki
"the controversy has been dubbed by some as "Memogate" and "Rathergate." Following an independent investigation commissioned by CBS, CBS fired story producer Mary Mapes and asked three other producers connected with the story to resign. It is unclear whether or not Rather's retirement was directly caused by this incident, although many believe that he had to step down a year earlier than planned."
"What would the state have to gain by promoting global warming?"
And control over your choices.
How did you get modded up?
I work with geologists, glaciologists, climatologists, and meteorologists all days, and there are several signs that warming is occuring- the most convincing being the melt of tropical glaciers, of which all of them are melting."
= 26&objectid=3504064
h tml
m l/content/factsheets/oldreports/glaciers2.html
No, they're not. And yours is a perfect example of why this subject is so divisive. If you genuinely are a grad student in atmospheric sciences, then you'd know that not all glaciers are melting.
So, either you're lying or you're a poor student. Either way, you're wrong.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/category/story.cfm?c_id
http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF16/1678.
http://archive.greenpeace.org/climate/arctic99/ht
"Does the fact that Canadians pollute mean that it is OK for the USA to pollute ?"
No one said that. They were asking why you have never bothered to hammer Canada for their inefficiency.
And even though I haven't read any of your history, I'd bet my first born child that you've NEVER hammered Canada for their inefficiency.
So spread the blame around, or give a better explanation of why you choose to single out the US (I should say ADMIT why you single out the US, because we all know why, we're just having fun watching you make silly excuses).
Bullshit, it's called being a whiny fuck.
If you were complaining about something important, I'd have your back.
But all your complaining (and in this thread YOU have done an assload of complaining) and your transparent attempts to make it a "free speech" issue are just dumb.
How many people don't have a DVR? Then this service is perfect for them, especially if they don't want to pay for anything. And you know that, you just like to whine.
But just in case you really ARE simply exercising your right to free speech, keep in mind, when fools like you go around abusing their rights, that makes life hard for everyone.
Stop bitching, and PLEASE stop acting like you're doing it out of patriotism or social responsibility.
Way to nitpick... prick.
And by the way, they did "go extinct" and "re-appear". In different species of cat.
That IS what convergent evolution is.
And one last thing, why are you such an asshole about it? You;d thik after peting 30 times in the same thread you'd realize that
a) no one cares what you think
b) being a dick gets you nowhere
So why be a dick? Especially when you're wrong?
Don't reply, I foed you because I don't have time for assholes like you.
Before claiming you'd researched it. Had you done so, you'd realize that right in the first paragraph, it says this
"The saber-tooth morphology is an excellent example of convergent evolution as it occurred repeatedly and independently in at least four distinct mammalian groups."
"Oh yeah this guy's great. I just got through spanking his juvenile ass in another discussion."
Really, that's funny, I though you were the one resorting to juvenile comments about pubic hair, while I was giving sources and quoting facts.
But I do finally understand how you gauge the efficacy of your posts.
The less accurate, more hyperbolic, less coherent, and more inflammatory the better.
And if it goes over with the mentally retarded demographic, or the 8 year old boys, you apparently think you're golden.
Now let me educate you AGAIN.
Facts win arguments. You have yet to provide a single one. 'Nuff said.
But really, pandering to the brain injury crowd isn't something you want to continue, although it may be beyond your ability to do otherwise...
Once again you talk out of your ass, and others corrected you.
Is it so hard fo you to at least ATTEMPT to be accurate? Or is that not part of how you troll?
"More poor posting just brimful of ad hominem goodness"
How surprising that you're a liar, and a hypocrite.
As for the ad hominem, quote it.
You'll find that once again, you're ignorance is easily discovered.
As for predicting my behavior, take a guess as to where I think your opinion belongs.
And you never refuted me, just resorted to your ad hominems, over and over, just as I stated, like a child having a tantrum.
I quoted facts, gave a source, and could easily direct you to more. You lied, made up facts, and accused me of a logical fallacy that you clearly don;t understand, or you're realize THERE ISN'T ANY AD HOMINEM.
But at least you're consistently ignorant.
It's not your fault though, I understand some people are so wrapped up in the importance of their opinion that they resort to just about any type of shameful behavior to prevent others from noticing their ignorance.
Why do you allow yourself to sink to such depths?
Sad really, but it doesn't surprise me one bit. I should have know from the vast overstatement and tone of arrogance and inflexibility that you'd act that way. I work with children you see, so I recognize the behaviors when they show themselves.
But you do need to look up ad hominem. You sound like that much more ridiculous using a term you don't understand, then accusing others of using them when you continuously do so yourself.
And the mod bombs got fixed. Shows what you know.
How empty and pathetic is your life that you have to follow me around and make moronic comments?
How sad. Really, your mother would be proud that the sum total of useful input from you is to toss out insults becaue someone demonstrated that you're full of shit.
And really, it's even more sad that you resorted to this for such a reason. I mean, what the hell is missing from your life that you need to go around klying about what you know, then insulting people who show you're an idiot and have no idea what the fuck you're talking about?
How the sum total of your posts are either outright fabrications or useless drivel.
Why is it that the only thing you can think of to say of any value here is either derogatory toward someone else or made up?
I caught you making shit up, and now the best you can do is toss around insults. Who is really behaving like a child there, litlle fella?
"However, the fact remains that corporations have unprecedented control of our society, and our government"
Reference the period around 1900 then apologize for your vast ignorance.
You know, that period when 1 out of 5 children worked in a factory or mine.
"I understand those of you who are in denial, however."
Well, I don't understand those of you who have to resort to overstatement and hyperbole to demonstrate their point.
I'd listen to you, but you destroyed your credibility.
Shouldn't you have bothered to check the accuracy yourself before you make assumptions about how much water the statement holds?
It really bothers me when people like you toss around assumptions based on incomplete information then expect others to correct you.
"Now, are you seriously going to sit there and suggest that we should just keep on pumping greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere until we know exactly how things work?"
Did I say that? No I didn't, so why are you resorting to straw men? Why are you putting words in my mouth?
"Maybe you should think about it the other way: that we should stop pumping greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere until we know how it works!"
Where did I make any suggestion at all about what to do? Why are you resorting to straw men? Why are you putting words in my mouth (again)?
You're the classic example of the wrong person to discuss this. Someone who has made up their mind. You think that you know the answer to the problem, but you don't, you're just incredibly fucking arrogant and assume you do.
The fact is that we have an incomplete understanding of what is happening with our atmosphere.
I don't want self-important fools like you dictating the course of events here. Our goal should be to figure out what the hell is happening and make corrections based on solid science, not on ignorant self assured ideas about what is happening.
Every time a study like this comes out, someone spouts off about SUVs and oil, and coal, and then dozens of others spout off in agreement.
And not a single one of them admits that they don't know what coal, and SUVs and oil are doing to the atmosphere.
And you're one of them.
If you REALLY care about the environment, if you REALLY care about the future of the earth and the human race, you'd be responsible enough to admit that our focus should be research, and that any talk of intervention is premature and irresponsible.
But you won't.
But you can keep it. I don't pay much attention to people who say things like
u m
"there are no punctuated equilbriaists movements"
Enlighten yourself
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibri
"There are religious nuts, or creationists, and biologists."
And there are people who believe something else entirely happened. Or some version that isn't either of the above, but has elements of each.
Your post very much reminds me of a 4 year old stamping their feet screaming "NU-UH! NU-UH! NUUU-UHHHH!" You overstated your position, and when called on it chose to retain the patently ridiculous assertion that there are only creationists and biologists.
But you're still wrong, no matter how many times you ignore the evidence, and no matter how often you stamp your feet and hold your breath. Reapeat the same incorrect assertion all you want, it won;t be right no matter how loud or how often you spout it.
As for the UID crap, what a colossally stupid thing to pay attention to. Are you some kind of UID bigot, that you actually look at the UID and make judgements based on it? That's really sad. (lurking since 99, and you'll never know if it's true or not)
"hypocrisy Audio pronunciation of "hypocrisy" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (h-pkr-s)
n. pl. hypocrisies
1. The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.
2. An act or instance of such falseness."
You did it, I didn't. That was pretty snippy, but it just made you look like even more of a cunt, and even better, wasn't even accurate. Now that you're a little smarter thanks to me, how about instead of being such a dick you answer the question?
Why were you complaining to the mods that I was complaining to the mods?
Why weren't they prosecuted if they were thieves? That's a criminal court's jurisdiction, not a civil court's.
"The little morons took something that wasn't theirs with the intent to cause harm"
What harm? He was embarassed, and frankly, if you think that's worthy of wasting a CIVIL court's time, then I'm wasting my time with you.
Here's what really happened. Rich brat does something stupid, tapes it, it gets out, he's embarassed, rich brat's mom and dad give him what he wants (just like they always have) and files suit. Rich kid's parents have enough money to bleed other kids parents dry, so they settle.
You might not like it, and you can make up all the stupid justifications for why you feel how you feel, but all you've done is support a rich spoiled brat abusing the courts to get something his parents never gave him and can't buy him. Self respect.
And even after it's over, he's the spoiled brat "Star Wars" kid, only now instead of being funny, he's that asshole who sued because he was embarrassed.
The only thing listed there that could be considered "damage" is the depression, and that usually not actionable.
In other words, no the article did not list the damages, you simply thought they did because you aren't well versed on civil law.
But you're the guy who claimed he read the Star Wars kid article and flamed me because I didn't.
And if you had read the article, you would have realized that what you claimed was stated in the article clearly isn't, and in fact the opposite is stated.
So this guy might not be citing his sources, but you're a liar.
Nothing that happens at school will force someone to leave school unless they choose to. Period, end of discussion.
You can try all the ridiculous, inflammatory analogies you want, but it won;t help because you can't answer this question without admitting the kid chose to leave.
Why did he leave school?
And as I've said before, nothing you say will change the fact that he did what he did as a reaction to other people. He chose to react that way.