Your "have" needs to be "has". I am making the correction only because I keep encountering basic grammatical errors on here (and elsewhere) that might be related to the background of the user or users, and in that case I want to let you know about the error.
I probably have at least technical skill
Note grammatically incorrect but...not very meaningful.
They are the guys in high school who is selling...
Your "is" needs to be "are". I am making the correction only because I keep encountering basic grammatical errors on here (and elsewhere) that might be related to the background of the user or users, and in that case I want to let you know about the error.
Hopefully, being a "nerd" site, this will be taken for what it's worth rather than condemned suddenly and viciously: I know a young man, we'll call him "Tim", who has among the severest forms of autism. Essentially it is a diagnosis of "will never be functional: always need assistance/direction and extreme oversight".
For whatever reason he was taken from a parent and put with another relative. Something along the lines of "Italian matriarchal type", and she had the old-school, conservative-like prejudices of "practically anything mammalian can be conditioned like Pavlov's dogs" and "things related by blood should be given lots of love", so she did both: when he "misbehaved", he got beatings, and the neural malformation or dysfunction that makes conditioning of behavior hard just meant that the discipline had to be that much more severe; at all other times, though discipline was very stringent, he was very much treated with love too.
So now the doctors and "experts" haven't a clue why, call him a miracle and mystery, but the guy functions with extreme...normality. He doesn't like to speak: he has both received a communications board (think Steven Hawkings) and been taught sign language, but seems to have something against language itself, and only talks with those he is very, very close to, but otherwise seems completely normal--slower than others yes, but he can get along, go out with people to enjoy himself, whether for a movie or playing put put.
Of course he really doesn't write, not that people with something against language could even be expected to try, much less people with extreme problems in neural development, but then again, nobody but family and insiders know why it is that he can actually function the way he does.
Or to summarize, he was viewed as a child with extreme behavior tendencies and a very strong will who had to be broken for his own benefit, and those around him, so that he could benefit from being social with those around him rather than isolated, and it worked. I think this suggest that the problem may lie partially in the "experts" picking-up some of the thinking from the damn social workers in schools and other "professional" fields: "O, Jonny has a syndrome that means he can't behave" (and yes, there is a diagnosis for this: it's also the symptom that portends that good teachers will quit public schools, and yes I have known a few of those too).
p.s. He is an adult now. Also, I do not say these things lightly: I was beaten--quite unjustly--rather frequently through certain portions of my childhood, by an inconsiderate father, who was often drunk (I ran away too: twice, the second time permanent), and just as mean the next day or days on "residual". I would be beaten over simple and trifling things, and even for things that I was not told were wrong or I shouldn't do, but simply because my father thought they either might make him look bad, or were not in accord with his ideals: also, the guy has few to no ideals and his opinions constantly move and shift: it was unpredictable, could come at any moment for anything, and it was living in hell day to day. There is a significant difference between discipline (for another's good) and that sort of abuse (beating someone with no appreciable reason or intended good, but out of mere anger).
But KDE4 made it painfully obvious that it was developed by people using very large displays (probably more than one) and very powerful hardware. The huge amount of space taken up by window decoration make it utterly useless on any but the largest laptops (hint: if your photo editor dedicates more display space to (mostly empty!) window decoration than the image then your UI is seriously fucked up),
This made me smile. : ) I encounter that sort of thing in software too much!
I'm very grateful to the Xfce devs who years ago took a basic but sane UI concept and have stuck to the tasks of incrementally improving it and sometimes integrating new features, while always keeping new versions feeling familiar and never forgetting that the end product has to be something that people like and want and can actually stick with and use every day.
More impressively, last I checked, XFCE is so light that it is re-written between major versions, to completely overhaul the code to implement the new features lightly. That's not always possible in software, but it's a clear indication of what basic tools that come with an OS for using a computer should and should not be. They should be small, unobtrusive, helpful; they should not be the main experience or point of using the system or buying a computer!
I think it has more to do with "we've built all this neat infrastructure to accomodate both devs and users; the latter have a pretty interface that's powerful, the former have a bunch of stuff to leverage--and none of the prescription, feature-removing, frustration of Gnome or Unity!!!" when many think "I just want something that (1) looks good enough and (2) that doesn't eat my hardware in the process; 1 is optional". I like KDE for all its integration, advantages, etc., but XFCE far better because I can drop it on a half gig of ram and care less about doing any tweaking to make sure it will run well or not. Too many devs in the Linux world started targeting the mainstream when their advantage was NOT eating-up all the hardware possible AND being able to install on older or lower-end hardware yet still produce a system that permits someone to be more productive than commercial systems.
Usually things like "easier development", "worry less about [bla bla bla] and more about functionality", etc., are code words for "we're getting lazy with use of system resources because the hardware coming out is really powerful" and "we're thinking of ourselves rather than the user." If XFCE keeps its focus on low system impact and efficient algorithms, and builds-out the kind of functionality once found in Gnome, Nautilus, etc., and avoids takeovers by those who don't care about this but only desktop share to sell software or services (or neither but integrates their services into the software to make sales or commission percentages on sales), I expect its share will just keep growing.
Bummer for you. I recently worked with a certain democratic organization that works closely with their supporting institutions and certain congressmen, after spending about a year of talking to a former obudsman of the state party and personal friend of one of our senators. I was also asked if I would like to continue on doing what I was with that organization, such that they may be giving me a call shortly. You may not like it, but vote-buying is the name of the American political game.
There's a fundamental problem with the way people have tried to construe the nature of the web in the name of having terms for accessing a site. It's one thing to say they can set terms for accessing active services (something that you give an input to generate an output), but another to say they can dictate how one can access information they have PUBLISHED TO THE WHOLE FRICKIN' WORLD. With that in mind, no one has the right to demand you view their ads to view the work they've put in publication: remember that they're sending the dang pages to you--and we have established that consideration in regard mail, you can't send something to another and then claim a right to dictate use or demand something in return.
It's another thing if they put it behind a pay wall, password protect services, etc.
What are you talking about? A reasonable one understands that we can choose what to receive or not receive on our machines: if they understand the nature of the web and of browsers. Now I grant there are plenty of libertarians that don't: and plenty of "libertarians" that are not libertarians, but one having the right to try and send an ad with the page, and another having the right not to receive, is perfectly compatible with liberty.
What if the child wants to be a farmer like his mom or dad? Trick question, evolution might be helpful here. Farmers can directly utilize knowledge about hybridization of plants, which would require learning about evolution;-).
Correction: hybridization belongs to genetics, not evolution. Neo-darwinism may rely on genetics, but strictly speaking one can totally divorce evolution from genetic and still learn all about plant hybridization. Just sayin'.
Why all vertebrates have exactly four limbs with five chiridiums each, except those that don't?
"Because they evolved!!!" is a philosophical, not scientific, answer. That is, methodological science is the testing of mechanics and determination of processes: period. And FYI, evolutionary biologists would prefer something like "how did vertebrates come to have exactly four limbs with..." rather than "why", though a bit pedantic, to insure clear distinction between purposive and mechanical reasoning: but the theories in our answers are still rationalized and back-fitted to the phenomena observed. Also, there are problems on other levels in your example and posed problem: the "vertebrates" have those because that's how we define "vertebrates"! Or one way we do: due to genetic work, the conceived relationships of critters are being divorced from the old anatomical models, and often the results are...quite contradictory of all the old assumptions and dogmas. Too often in the past, evolution served as an existential replacement for the supposed mortally wounded religious ideologies and too many "why's" creeped-in to the dialogue about explaining anatomical features and shared phenotypes.
I find it interesting that we talk of "flood control" given a flood is something that by definition is not controlled. Anyway, please feel free to elaborate on the Missouri thing: I won't read it immediately as there are things to do, but I do appreciate taking a wide view of the world and affairs, and seeing if I might learn anything from taking note. When you reply I'll get a notification in my inbox and be able to read what you write later. If you don't have time for this, however, just post links to some good sources. : )
Ah junk. I think I misread that (all) earlier (and then even typed it). I'm not sure what I was thinking "slipperier" was earlier, but it may have something to do with still being tired. : (
Apologies.
I need to wait a few hours before posting after waking. (Like forbidding oneself from/.ing when tired in the evening!) Speaking of being loathe to add those endings, I enjoy "funner" (Germanic) over "more fun" (Latinate) any day: you can find teachers correcting kids to use the latter yet find the former in authoritative writing just a few decades ago.
The USCOE constantly tells their superiors and those they serve what is needed, and they are routinely ignored. They told New Orleans and Louisiana for years, for instance, that the levees were insufficient and vulnerable, and they needed funding and to do this and that... others pointed-out that people shouldn't be permitted to get housing insurance in floodzones or move into certain areas residentially: the scheming asshats in office, however, preaching (on both sides of the aisle) for many decades that a "home" (read "house"), in zoned-and-covenanted-to-death areas, as controlled-by-"city planners"-"property", is an "investment" and yada yada and that we'd all get rich by lending to one another at interest and buying houses on land stolen from farmers and poor people who were previously enjoying the land taken by "eminent domain" for "the public good"...ignored them, didn't give the proper funding; forced "regulations" on "tze evilz" insurance companies to provide flood insurance in areas liable to flooding without the increase in payments any non-idiot would require his company charge...
I have a grandmother from the south who lived in New Orleans for years: before the blight and economic downturn there. They were ignoring the USACOE back then too. They didn't want to build (or maintain) levees of dirt, but that's all their budget permits in many areas. Later, the democrats of the state started passing-out vote-purchasing checks to minorities in the state (and making no pretenses about the "'reverse' racism", the mayor of New Orleans at the time while I was there after Katrina spoke very openly about how "we're'a gonna hav'a chocolate city again") that were often derived from money intended for...the USACOE...for the levees.
The USACOE are the lowest-rung the brown is rolled down upon, so I'd just like to use this opportunity to tell this little story (above), and tell all to give them some slack and appreciation: they follow orders and do what...they can with what they're [not] given. Funding that goes to states for the USACOE or projects complementary to them often is robbed by politicians to give to their constituents in one benefit or another; then as in the story you linked, politicians from those states make demands of the USACOE to keep thing running despite their and their residents' neglect of being responsible, planning-ahead, and investing rather than squandering monies and assets.
I've heard "slippier" all the time, "slipperier" isn't actually in common usage (I'm in Denver, have family all over--the U.S. and world--and Denver has immigrants from states and other nations everywhere: nobody says "slipperier"); I can find it, Googling, in little local publications, but it's a mish-mash of incompatible conventions, whereas "slippier" actually follows compatible (grammatical) conventions.
So out of curiosity, where you at? Where have you heard/read/seen/do you see "slipperier", and where can I find these people? I'm asking sincerely because I like English and languages/languages and linguistics. : )
A few scholars have pointed-out that the Islamic caliphate was, essentially, relying on the intellectual capital of the civilizations they invaded and subordinated, that those proffering questions were heretics by their standard, in general, then and now, and that this was never the ideal situation in Islamic orthodoxy: that their destruction of free thought, discovery, etc., was inevitable, and that they were more scholars than inventors and producers. Similarly, the Chinese long ago had, and even now have, a problem with the powerful trying to limit thought and opinions in the name of protecting the powerful elite and harmony of the state: compare the "liberal" (progressives) actions here and rhetoric about order etc., in indoctrinating youth to be open but "intolerant of intolerance" and make taboo even the hypothetical consideration that things they champion could be "wrong" or even "not preferable": Allan Bloom had a few things to say on that in "The Closing of the American Mind." Older political philosophers/observers noted that if certain doctrines and lack of principles/morals take root, then the ideas themselves of consequence can produce the same effects of coordinated power to oppress, censure, or stigmatize certain thoughts, and gets a people to oppress itself: certain political factions and movements were actually heavy students of these older, "conservative" (and they were) writers/philosophers.
I would say that societies that don't value free inquiry, thought, expression--even assertion that makes people feel uncomfortable or that may attack the dignity one supposes is one's inherent state or due/rigth are doomed to fall into absurdity, subjection to arbitrary and capricious power careful only for itself, humiliation, oppression, and finally annihilation or defeat at the hands of a nation or nations that does not fall to such "empire" (look up the original meaning). It's why as much as I like bio I can't like Dawkins, while Hitchens rocked for his championing of reason, civility, tolerance (in truth and not just paying it lip service in the name of crushing unwanted ideas and manners of life), and amicability toward all who would speak with him. : )
Then don't be an idiot and use an acronym that includes a word with a contrary initial pronunciation of the shared first consonant: nerds have a problem of trying to be clever in marketing that contradicts established conventions and norms, and only they care: everyone else safely ignores them.
I don't think you understand DNA testing very well. The tests don't do a one-to-one codon match, which Joe public seems to think (even if he doesn't know what a "codon" is): "DNA is unique and a DNA test identifies it perfectly!": that's not the case, of almost any currently used test. Specific markers are used and the statistical certainties leveraged...but there is a lot of room for false positives, matches in the wrong people, etc.: it's like the time a couple of engineers using the same calculators made a bet on an equation, then input the equations into the calculators and...got two slightly different answers: I remember a guy talking about this experience and how they were all in shock because the probabilities were absurdly (in the mathematical sense) low that this would happen--something that scientists would think impossible--yet it did.
DNA is more of a cluster than that; there's a lot of "random" assignment (i.e. we don't know the inputs, and can't account for them, in a given individual), people are related so you can get cross-matches: identical twins can actually test the same of course, but though very small, there is a chance that so can brothers, cousins, etc. I would not "volunteer" my DNA any day, because the people in government think "DNA, IT MUST PROVE SOMETHING" (and so does the populace), not unlike when they hear "polygraph" they think "NOW WE'LL KNOW IF HE'S TELLING THE TRUTH" (polygraphs are **** btw).
And even if it was one-to-one btw, there are of course SNiPs, TWO sets of DNA (as in, chromosomes come from pairs), epigenetics (both the expression, and with the likes of directed evolution genes there are further changes to the genome...): conceivably just through epigenetics multiple people subjected to similar conditions could have similar changes to their genomes. The real problem, though, is the overdramatization and inflated claims for "science" by the purveyors, speakers, and researchers that depend on fear and paranoia for grants, support, and prestige: the first lesson I had in university biology, in fact, after the professor checked to insure all there were majors, was "remember people, there're only so many cookies in the jar and a lot of hands: FEAR gets money." We need less confidence and more "we don't know ****" kinds of attitudes.
I think this is a side effect of the recent foolishness that has defined a corporation as a "person",
"people", not "persons": by their very nature--and by the definition of "corporation"--a "corporation" IS (consists of, is composed of, is comprised of...) people; the thing is, in the United States, people have a right to assemble, to redress of grievances, expression, gathering...Citizens United was a non-profit org, btw. Note the constitution even puts it as "the right of the PEOPLE!!!" You could pass new laws, get another ruling...it's still written there. The Government branches, by the way, are actually corporations. Should their right to speak be restricted?
the unregulated ability of lobbyists for the industry to flood the government with cash to get laws which hurt the consumer and help business passed
Much of the lobby is by private-interest corporations (often the Democratic kind, which get strange passes on the laws that suddenly were applied to censure Citizens United) for social ends: the big evilz like tze oil and the 20 billion extra that could be made by increasing taxes (by restructuring the laws to increase their liabilities) would cover our expenditures for about...20 minutes. But consider all the begging for every disease, possible upheaval/disaster/bad situation... However our real problem remains entitlements: expanded to prop-up an increasingly flippant, imprudent, silly middle class, rather than kept thin and light, meant only for the truly needy (e.g. original social security: ~2 of 100 people, really old people, starving people...).
I certainly agree that artists should be compensated for their output - after all, their creativity is exactly what we are paying them FOR. However, the only profitable part of the recording industry is to produce content.
Perhaps the best course of action would be for a groundswell of support by consumers to get the law repealed is the correct answer here.
pleasant dreams
dave mundt
What is this gibberish? No, seriously. And why should we care to compensate output that isn't conducive to production? How about retaining the freedom in capitalism and paying for what one values or wants to approve of/have, and not for what one does not. Compensation implies owing something. IF artists want to be compensated, they can impress me to hire them or buy their wares: otherwise they can go away.
Actualy, many of the roles that once required lawyers have been automated: there is a reaon so many chase ambulances, and it is because most people, despite constantly needing legal counsel, obtain it only after suffering accidents: those who know better are those you want to work for, and they're very few.
Society has been complex enough since Rome that mere farmers and merchants should acquire legal counsel, and anyone doing business back then within her imperium likely would: today we go to the net for advice and blow 200/mo. on t.v., 80/mo. on data plan, 10-20/mo. for a streaming subscription, 30-150/mo. for high-speed internet, probably hundreds on largely prepared convenience foods...then complain about lawyers' expense, consumer driven health plans, deductibles, cost of living...
Slashdot Mirror
I'm a computer scientist who have also studied
Your "have" needs to be "has". I am making the correction only because I keep encountering basic grammatical errors on here (and elsewhere) that might be related to the background of the user or users, and in that case I want to let you know about the error.
I probably have at least technical skill
Note grammatically incorrect but...not very meaningful.
I really like this post btw, http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3121347&cid=41360549
They are the guys in high school who is selling...
Your "is" needs to be "are". I am making the correction only because I keep encountering basic grammatical errors on here (and elsewhere) that might be related to the background of the user or users, and in that case I want to let you know about the error.
It can't make itself illegal because it can't legally be applied retroactively. Still a funny thought thought.
Hopefully, being a "nerd" site, this will be taken for what it's worth rather than condemned suddenly and viciously: I know a young man, we'll call him "Tim", who has among the severest forms of autism. Essentially it is a diagnosis of "will never be functional: always need assistance/direction and extreme oversight".
For whatever reason he was taken from a parent and put with another relative. Something along the lines of "Italian matriarchal type", and she had the old-school, conservative-like prejudices of "practically anything mammalian can be conditioned like Pavlov's dogs" and "things related by blood should be given lots of love", so she did both: when he "misbehaved", he got beatings, and the neural malformation or dysfunction that makes conditioning of behavior hard just meant that the discipline had to be that much more severe; at all other times, though discipline was very stringent, he was very much treated with love too.
So now the doctors and "experts" haven't a clue why, call him a miracle and mystery, but the guy functions with extreme...normality. He doesn't like to speak: he has both received a communications board (think Steven Hawkings) and been taught sign language, but seems to have something against language itself, and only talks with those he is very, very close to, but otherwise seems completely normal--slower than others yes, but he can get along, go out with people to enjoy himself, whether for a movie or playing put put.
Of course he really doesn't write, not that people with something against language could even be expected to try, much less people with extreme problems in neural development, but then again, nobody but family and insiders know why it is that he can actually function the way he does.
Or to summarize, he was viewed as a child with extreme behavior tendencies and a very strong will who had to be broken for his own benefit, and those around him, so that he could benefit from being social with those around him rather than isolated, and it worked. I think this suggest that the problem may lie partially in the "experts" picking-up some of the thinking from the damn social workers in schools and other "professional" fields: "O, Jonny has a syndrome that means he can't behave" (and yes, there is a diagnosis for this: it's also the symptom that portends that good teachers will quit public schools, and yes I have known a few of those too).
p.s. He is an adult now. Also, I do not say these things lightly: I was beaten--quite unjustly--rather frequently through certain portions of my childhood, by an inconsiderate father, who was often drunk (I ran away too: twice, the second time permanent), and just as mean the next day or days on "residual". I would be beaten over simple and trifling things, and even for things that I was not told were wrong or I shouldn't do, but simply because my father thought they either might make him look bad, or were not in accord with his ideals: also, the guy has few to no ideals and his opinions constantly move and shift: it was unpredictable, could come at any moment for anything, and it was living in hell day to day. There is a significant difference between discipline (for another's good) and that sort of abuse (beating someone with no appreciable reason or intended good, but out of mere anger).
This made me smile. : ) I encounter that sort of thing in software too much!
More impressively, last I checked, XFCE is so light that it is re-written between major versions, to completely overhaul the code to implement the new features lightly. That's not always possible in software, but it's a clear indication of what basic tools that come with an OS for using a computer should and should not be. They should be small, unobtrusive, helpful; they should not be the main experience or point of using the system or buying a computer!
I think it has more to do with "we've built all this neat infrastructure to accomodate both devs and users; the latter have a pretty interface that's powerful, the former have a bunch of stuff to leverage--and none of the prescription, feature-removing, frustration of Gnome or Unity!!!" when many think "I just want something that (1) looks good enough and (2) that doesn't eat my hardware in the process; 1 is optional". I like KDE for all its integration, advantages, etc., but XFCE far better because I can drop it on a half gig of ram and care less about doing any tweaking to make sure it will run well or not. Too many devs in the Linux world started targeting the mainstream when their advantage was NOT eating-up all the hardware possible AND being able to install on older or lower-end hardware yet still produce a system that permits someone to be more productive than commercial systems.
Usually things like "easier development", "worry less about [bla bla bla] and more about functionality", etc., are code words for "we're getting lazy with use of system resources because the hardware coming out is really powerful" and "we're thinking of ourselves rather than the user." If XFCE keeps its focus on low system impact and efficient algorithms, and builds-out the kind of functionality once found in Gnome, Nautilus, etc., and avoids takeovers by those who don't care about this but only desktop share to sell software or services (or neither but integrates their services into the software to make sales or commission percentages on sales), I expect its share will just keep growing.
Bummer for you. I recently worked with a certain democratic organization that works closely with their supporting institutions and certain congressmen, after spending about a year of talking to a former obudsman of the state party and personal friend of one of our senators. I was also asked if I would like to continue on doing what I was with that organization, such that they may be giving me a call shortly. You may not like it, but vote-buying is the name of the American political game.
Bummer!
There's a fundamental problem with the way people have tried to construe the nature of the web in the name of having terms for accessing a site. It's one thing to say they can set terms for accessing active services (something that you give an input to generate an output), but another to say they can dictate how one can access information they have PUBLISHED TO THE WHOLE FRICKIN' WORLD. With that in mind, no one has the right to demand you view their ads to view the work they've put in publication: remember that they're sending the dang pages to you--and we have established that consideration in regard mail, you can't send something to another and then claim a right to dictate use or demand something in return.
It's another thing if they put it behind a pay wall, password protect services, etc.
What are you talking about? A reasonable one understands that we can choose what to receive or not receive on our machines: if they understand the nature of the web and of browsers. Now I grant there are plenty of libertarians that don't: and plenty of "libertarians" that are not libertarians, but one having the right to try and send an ad with the page, and another having the right not to receive, is perfectly compatible with liberty.
Correction: hybridization belongs to genetics, not evolution. Neo-darwinism may rely on genetics, but strictly speaking one can totally divorce evolution from genetic and still learn all about plant hybridization. Just sayin'.
"Because they evolved!!!" is a philosophical, not scientific, answer. That is, methodological science is the testing of mechanics and determination of processes: period. And FYI, evolutionary biologists would prefer something like "how did vertebrates come to have exactly four limbs with..." rather than "why", though a bit pedantic, to insure clear distinction between purposive and mechanical reasoning: but the theories in our answers are still rationalized and back-fitted to the phenomena observed. Also, there are problems on other levels in your example and posed problem: the "vertebrates" have those because that's how we define "vertebrates"! Or one way we do: due to genetic work, the conceived relationships of critters are being divorced from the old anatomical models, and often the results are...quite contradictory of all the old assumptions and dogmas. Too often in the past, evolution served as an existential replacement for the supposed mortally wounded religious ideologies and too many "why's" creeped-in to the dialogue about explaining anatomical features and shared phenotypes.
So then all the people of the world who simply don't know about it are abusive? Hmm...
I find it interesting that we talk of "flood control" given a flood is something that by definition is not controlled. Anyway, please feel free to elaborate on the Missouri thing: I won't read it immediately as there are things to do, but I do appreciate taking a wide view of the world and affairs, and seeing if I might learn anything from taking note. When you reply I'll get a notification in my inbox and be able to read what you write later. If you don't have time for this, however, just post links to some good sources. : )
Ah junk. I think I misread that (all) earlier (and then even typed it). I'm not sure what I was thinking "slipperier" was earlier, but it may have something to do with still being tired. : (
/.ing when tired in the evening!) Speaking of being loathe to add those endings, I enjoy "funner" (Germanic) over "more fun" (Latinate) any day: you can find teachers correcting kids to use the latter yet find the former in authoritative writing just a few decades ago.
Apologies.
I need to wait a few hours before posting after waking. (Like forbidding oneself from
The USCOE constantly tells their superiors and those they serve what is needed, and they are routinely ignored. They told New Orleans and Louisiana for years, for instance, that the levees were insufficient and vulnerable, and they needed funding and to do this and that... others pointed-out that people shouldn't be permitted to get housing insurance in floodzones or move into certain areas residentially: the scheming asshats in office, however, preaching (on both sides of the aisle) for many decades that a "home" (read "house"), in zoned-and-covenanted-to-death areas, as controlled-by-"city planners"-"property", is an "investment" and yada yada and that we'd all get rich by lending to one another at interest and buying houses on land stolen from farmers and poor people who were previously enjoying the land taken by "eminent domain" for "the public good"...ignored them, didn't give the proper funding; forced "regulations" on "tze evilz" insurance companies to provide flood insurance in areas liable to flooding without the increase in payments any non-idiot would require his company charge...
I have a grandmother from the south who lived in New Orleans for years: before the blight and economic downturn there. They were ignoring the USACOE back then too. They didn't want to build (or maintain) levees of dirt, but that's all their budget permits in many areas. Later, the democrats of the state started passing-out vote-purchasing checks to minorities in the state (and making no pretenses about the "'reverse' racism", the mayor of New Orleans at the time while I was there after Katrina spoke very openly about how "we're'a gonna hav'a chocolate city again") that were often derived from money intended for...the USACOE...for the levees.
The USACOE are the lowest-rung the brown is rolled down upon, so I'd just like to use this opportunity to tell this little story (above), and tell all to give them some slack and appreciation: they follow orders and do what...they can with what they're [not] given. Funding that goes to states for the USACOE or projects complementary to them often is robbed by politicians to give to their constituents in one benefit or another; then as in the story you linked, politicians from those states make demands of the USACOE to keep thing running despite their and their residents' neglect of being responsible, planning-ahead, and investing rather than squandering monies and assets.
I've heard "slippier" all the time, "slipperier" isn't actually in common usage (I'm in Denver, have family all over--the U.S. and world--and Denver has immigrants from states and other nations everywhere: nobody says "slipperier"); I can find it, Googling, in little local publications, but it's a mish-mash of incompatible conventions, whereas "slippier" actually follows compatible (grammatical) conventions.
So out of curiosity, where you at? Where have you heard/read/seen/do you see "slipperier", and where can I find these people? I'm asking sincerely because I like English and languages/languages and linguistics. : )
A few scholars have pointed-out that the Islamic caliphate was, essentially, relying on the intellectual capital of the civilizations they invaded and subordinated, that those proffering questions were heretics by their standard, in general, then and now, and that this was never the ideal situation in Islamic orthodoxy: that their destruction of free thought, discovery, etc., was inevitable, and that they were more scholars than inventors and producers. Similarly, the Chinese long ago had, and even now have, a problem with the powerful trying to limit thought and opinions in the name of protecting the powerful elite and harmony of the state: compare the "liberal" (progressives) actions here and rhetoric about order etc., in indoctrinating youth to be open but "intolerant of intolerance" and make taboo even the hypothetical consideration that things they champion could be "wrong" or even "not preferable": Allan Bloom had a few things to say on that in "The Closing of the American Mind." Older political philosophers/observers noted that if certain doctrines and lack of principles/morals take root, then the ideas themselves of consequence can produce the same effects of coordinated power to oppress, censure, or stigmatize certain thoughts, and gets a people to oppress itself: certain political factions and movements were actually heavy students of these older, "conservative" (and they were) writers/philosophers.
I would say that societies that don't value free inquiry, thought, expression--even assertion that makes people feel uncomfortable or that may attack the dignity one supposes is one's inherent state or due/rigth are doomed to fall into absurdity, subjection to arbitrary and capricious power careful only for itself, humiliation, oppression, and finally annihilation or defeat at the hands of a nation or nations that does not fall to such "empire" (look up the original meaning). It's why as much as I like bio I can't like Dawkins, while Hitchens rocked for his championing of reason, civility, tolerance (in truth and not just paying it lip service in the name of crushing unwanted ideas and manners of life), and amicability toward all who would speak with him. : )
I'm guessing you're being sarcastic, but for those who aren't so guessing: http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/paris.html
Then don't be an idiot and use an acronym that includes a word with a contrary initial pronunciation of the shared first consonant: nerds have a problem of trying to be clever in marketing that contradicts established conventions and norms, and only they care: everyone else safely ignores them.
I don't think you understand DNA testing very well. The tests don't do a one-to-one codon match, which Joe public seems to think (even if he doesn't know what a "codon" is): "DNA is unique and a DNA test identifies it perfectly!": that's not the case, of almost any currently used test. Specific markers are used and the statistical certainties leveraged...but there is a lot of room for false positives, matches in the wrong people, etc.: it's like the time a couple of engineers using the same calculators made a bet on an equation, then input the equations into the calculators and...got two slightly different answers: I remember a guy talking about this experience and how they were all in shock because the probabilities were absurdly (in the mathematical sense) low that this would happen--something that scientists would think impossible--yet it did.
DNA is more of a cluster than that; there's a lot of "random" assignment (i.e. we don't know the inputs, and can't account for them, in a given individual), people are related so you can get cross-matches: identical twins can actually test the same of course, but though very small, there is a chance that so can brothers, cousins, etc. I would not "volunteer" my DNA any day, because the people in government think "DNA, IT MUST PROVE SOMETHING" (and so does the populace), not unlike when they hear "polygraph" they think "NOW WE'LL KNOW IF HE'S TELLING THE TRUTH" (polygraphs are **** btw).
And even if it was one-to-one btw, there are of course SNiPs, TWO sets of DNA (as in, chromosomes come from pairs), epigenetics (both the expression, and with the likes of directed evolution genes there are further changes to the genome...): conceivably just through epigenetics multiple people subjected to similar conditions could have similar changes to their genomes. The real problem, though, is the overdramatization and inflated claims for "science" by the purveyors, speakers, and researchers that depend on fear and paranoia for grants, support, and prestige: the first lesson I had in university biology, in fact, after the professor checked to insure all there were majors, was "remember people, there're only so many cookies in the jar and a lot of hands: FEAR gets money." We need less confidence and more "we don't know ****" kinds of attitudes.
America, alas, has WAY too many laws.
Agreed.
I think this is a side effect of the recent foolishness that has defined a corporation as a "person",
"people", not "persons": by their very nature--and by the definition of "corporation"--a "corporation" IS (consists of, is composed of, is comprised of...) people; the thing is, in the United States, people have a right to assemble, to redress of grievances, expression, gathering...Citizens United was a non-profit org, btw. Note the constitution even puts it as "the right of the PEOPLE!!!" You could pass new laws, get another ruling...it's still written there. The Government branches, by the way, are actually corporations. Should their right to speak be restricted?
the unregulated ability of lobbyists for the industry to flood the government with cash to get laws which hurt the consumer and help business passed
Much of the lobby is by private-interest corporations (often the Democratic kind, which get strange passes on the laws that suddenly were applied to censure Citizens United) for social ends: the big evilz like tze oil and the 20 billion extra that could be made by increasing taxes (by restructuring the laws to increase their liabilities) would cover our expenditures for about...20 minutes. But consider all the begging for every disease, possible upheaval/disaster/bad situation... However our real problem remains entitlements: expanded to prop-up an increasingly flippant, imprudent, silly middle class, rather than kept thin and light, meant only for the truly needy (e.g. original social security: ~2 of 100 people, really old people, starving people...).
What is this gibberish? No, seriously. And why should we care to compensate output that isn't conducive to production? How about retaining the freedom in capitalism and paying for what one values or wants to approve of/have, and not for what one does not. Compensation implies owing something. IF artists want to be compensated, they can impress me to hire them or buy their wares: otherwise they can go away.
Name one.
Actualy, many of the roles that once required lawyers have been automated: there is a reaon so many chase ambulances, and it is because most people, despite constantly needing legal counsel, obtain it only after suffering accidents: those who know better are those you want to work for, and they're very few.
Society has been complex enough since Rome that mere farmers and merchants should acquire legal counsel, and anyone doing business back then within her imperium likely would: today we go to the net for advice and blow 200/mo. on t.v., 80/mo. on data plan, 10-20/mo. for a streaming subscription, 30-150/mo. for high-speed internet, probably hundreds on largely prepared convenience foods...then complain about lawyers' expense, consumer driven health plans, deductibles, cost of living...
edit "unresponsible/slow" to "unresponsive/slow"