While I agree with you that enabling an institution to grant science degrees to an assembly line of hack "scientists" is a terrible idea, the lack of respect most Slashdotters have for other beliefs is disheartening.
Sure, if a belief conflicts all of our known scientific knowledge, that belief should be disregarded (e.g. the earth is not 6,000 years old). But our kneejerk reaction to mock any spiritual belief, even if we have no scientific reason not to, isn't much better than Creationists ignoring evolution because it just doesn't seem very Biblical.
I'm sure there are plenty of things Creationists could propose and research that do not have an established base of scientific proof. Sure, many of their publications would be all questions with no answers, but laughing off a researcher adhering to the scientific method (no matter what his intentions) isn't right. Yes, be skeptical and throw away any idea that ends with "...as stated in Mark 2:18.", but don't disallow their valid points just because of a sense of elitism.
Nope. The measure doesn't spring into action until enough states accept the resolution to ensure the popular vote overrides the other states.
In other words, if less that 270 electors' worth pass a similar measure, Iowa's votes will work the way they used to. However, once more than 270 are on board, they switch to the popular vote method and winner takes all.
If anything, Iowa's votes will count for more because of this measure.
Yeah, unfortunately/. wouldn't let me post all 72 in a row. Apparently that sort of activity is too immature for an technology discussion website, but perfectly appropriate for a legal document.
This is an actual direct quote from Thompson's complaint, including all 72 periods.
78. This was followed with other posts that Thompson should be struck with a
baseball bat, shot in the face by an irate gamer, castrated and his testicles stuffed down
his throat, and the exercise of other basic "constitutional" rights to advocate violence
against an individual...[72 '.' in total]...Not!
It seriously sounds like it was written by a 8 year old troll.
Individual anecdotes don't hold up in court or even "independent" studies about game violence. The point with this whole video game violence debate isn't that every kid will be messed up from a violent game; instead it's that a few kids may get messed up. Of course the vast majority of people are well-adjusted enough to not be affected - but those kids aren't the point. The point is the GTA-playing kid who makes headlines on Fox News and for gunning down his classmates.
We can stand up on our self-righteous thrones and criticize the idiotic parents while watching the industry fall deeper under control by the government... or we can swallow our pride a little bit and settle with a compromise that really isn't that bad at all.
That's the problem with so many Slashdotters out there. Everything has to be some right vs. wrong crusade against the ignorant masses. Outside of our online soapboxes however, its really only the shades of gray have any chance of making any progress.
My wife and my kids get root on their computer. It's theirs, not mine, and what they do with it is their business.
See the problem that many parents have with that view is that a computer isn't like any other toy where that whole "their property" stance can't cause much trouble. You can't email naked pictures of yourself or have conversations with pedophiles on your PS2. While a lot of the thinkofthechildren paranoia that permeates our culture is ridiculous, parents being hesitant to give root privileges for such a limitless piece of technology is in no way an overreaction on their parts.
Of course all parents have the right to do what they feel is right for their children, but in any healthy parent/child relationship the parent needs to be aware that most kids aren't born with a fully fleshed out concept of responsibility and consequence. In my opinion, moderate use of some parental monitoring capabilities is a perfectly legitimate way to help fill in those gaps until these concepts mature in our newly wired world.
Slashdot Mirror
While I agree with you that enabling an institution to grant science degrees to an assembly line of hack "scientists" is a terrible idea, the lack of respect most Slashdotters have for other beliefs is disheartening.
Sure, if a belief conflicts all of our known scientific knowledge, that belief should be disregarded (e.g. the earth is not 6,000 years old). But our kneejerk reaction to mock any spiritual belief, even if we have no scientific reason not to, isn't much better than Creationists ignoring evolution because it just doesn't seem very Biblical.
I'm sure there are plenty of things Creationists could propose and research that do not have an established base of scientific proof. Sure, many of their publications would be all questions with no answers, but laughing off a researcher adhering to the scientific method (no matter what his intentions) isn't right. Yes, be skeptical and throw away any idea that ends with "...as stated in Mark 2:18.", but don't disallow their valid points just because of a sense of elitism.
In short, don't be a Scully.
Nope. The measure doesn't spring into action until enough states accept the resolution to ensure the popular vote overrides the other states. In other words, if less that 270 electors' worth pass a similar measure, Iowa's votes will work the way they used to. However, once more than 270 are on board, they switch to the popular vote method and winner takes all. If anything, Iowa's votes will count for more because of this measure.
Allegheny County (where Pittsburgh is) has all houses on their property assessment website.
Here is this one: http://www2.county.allegheny.pa.us/RealEstate/Image.asp?CurrBloLot=0823E00136000000&Street=oakridge
The county has been causing all of us Pittsburghers untold amounts of "mental suffering" for years.
Yeah, unfortunately /. wouldn't let me post all 72 in a row. Apparently that sort of activity is too immature for an technology discussion website, but perfectly appropriate for a legal document.
Individual anecdotes don't hold up in court or even "independent" studies about game violence. The point with this whole video game violence debate isn't that every kid will be messed up from a violent game; instead it's that a few kids may get messed up. Of course the vast majority of people are well-adjusted enough to not be affected - but those kids aren't the point. The point is the GTA-playing kid who makes headlines on Fox News and for gunning down his classmates.
We can stand up on our self-righteous thrones and criticize the idiotic parents while watching the industry fall deeper under control by the government... or we can swallow our pride a little bit and settle with a compromise that really isn't that bad at all.
That's the problem with so many Slashdotters out there. Everything has to be some right vs. wrong crusade against the ignorant masses. Outside of our online soapboxes however, its really only the shades of gray have any chance of making any progress.
Of course all parents have the right to do what they feel is right for their children, but in any healthy parent/child relationship the parent needs to be aware that most kids aren't born with a fully fleshed out concept of responsibility and consequence. In my opinion, moderate use of some parental monitoring capabilities is a perfectly legitimate way to help fill in those gaps until these concepts mature in our newly wired world.
Well if wikipedia says it, it simply must be true.