Although I'd still like to give the person responsible for "blog" a kick in the nuts. to understand this, you have to understand Japanese abbreviations, it makes perfect sense to those who understand!
you may be right... i have heard very little none agenda-based science, therefore I may be a little skeptical, but I am not totally closed-minded. That is why I asked.Notice how some comments before yours were helpful, a lot unlike yours.
Unfortunately, they are working on banning hcfc's as well. And all civilian have been required to use hfc's since '95. (you probably just got mixed up). Europe is already talking about banning hfc's. I am interested to know what they plan on using, propane?, co2?, ammonia.
How do we know that the ozone layer doesn't naturally? I mean it closed back up, and I highly doubt it was because we stopped using r-12 and r-502. Seriously, how do we know that the hole was caused by cfc's, I would think if it was and the cfc's somehow defied gravity and got up to the ozone layer there would be multiple holes?
P. S. I work on a/c's.
Though I agree that they are mostly the same, the democrat candidates are out there screaming that they will raise taxes, that they will repel the tax cuts. It sounds like most of the country has a flawed mentality about the budget, in order to fix it we neet to cut spending (most of all) and cut taxes, that is the only way to help it. Every candidate (well, the major ones that I have paid attention to) on the democrat side has sai they would raise taxes, redistribute wealth, this is the wrong direction.
Now it is true that the congress has been terrible about this (when the republicans were in power, and now (though on a slightly bigger scale, imo with the democratic congress) if you listen to many of the republican candidates they are talking like they have the right idea, but unfortunately, like you said, I'm not 100% sure I can trust them, but I know without a doubt I can trust them more then any democrat candidate that I have seen.
And experience does matter, not to say that just because one has more experience makes them a better all around candidate would be stretching it. I believe if Obama had more usable experiance: 1. he wouldn't have gotten so riled up about Hillary's comments, maybe he would give some examples of why he was more experianced, not just make some random attack at her 2. He wouldn't be announcing to the world that we wouldn't use in any circumstance a type of weapon, and invade an ally in a region that is unstable.
Lastly, I think that republicans not caring about the middle class has risen to the status of dogma and really has no unbiased empirical proof. If you think caring about the middle class means sticking it to the upper class, then I guess you are right, but oh so wrong at the same time. How about leaving both alone and letting all of us prosper!
Obama has no experience, consider his recent battle of words with Hillary (which Hillary's campaign loved btw), he really has no clue, he even has less of a clue then hillary...
does that mean the republicans are better or worse... maybe neither, but I daresay that most of the candidates on the republican side are more qualified for the office of the president than any on the democratic side...
...again consider the recent republican debate, the republicans have a broad range of differences in opinions and politics, the democrats seem to all say the same thing to me, tax, bring home the troops, tax, universal healthcare, more tax.
I would love it if Paul got in, although I disagree with him on some things, but I really think it's going to come down to Gulliani and Clinton.
Disclaimer: The above is my opinion, not to be confused with a troll. At the risk of being a victim of the ever-present groupthink here on slashdot, I am not posting as AC.
I just used google's 411 service ( http://labs.google.com/goog411/ ) and it's speech recognition was great. I usually have a hard time with them because of my New Orleans dialect, but it understood every word, opposed to those that can't get the number you're saying ("I'm sorry, I didn't understand you, could you please repeat the WHOLE thing again!").
That's funny... I always heard it the other way around, like...
Europe has been long gone, the US' turn is around the corner
Perspectives are a funny thing, like all those people saying the media is controlled by Republicans, it always seemed to me that the media is controlled by liberals. And they all said the Republicans were for the big companies and Demos were for the little guy, but it seemed to me the policies of the demos kept the so-called little guy down. Perspectives I guess.
Wow... a lot of replies, and some very interesting posts, who would have thought on Slashdot where the group think is usually prevalent
As for as "skewed morality" I think that is an interesting point. Its not clear to me if you are talking about the right or left being skewed, or which one has the proper morality, but I am assuming you mean the "religious". If you really think about it the debate is really not a closed one, both sides have interesting facts and points. The pro-abortionists don't necessarily see the baby as alive, the pro-lifers do. The argument has always been where life begins. The point that most pro-lifers have with birth control is not usually birth control in itself (not anymore anyway), but with certain forms. If you believe that life begins with conception, then there are forms of birth control that kill the embryo and therefore is taking life. Sounds pretty logical to me. The otherside makes logical points as well, I am not saying they don't. It just seems easier for some to dismiss those that oppose their views by calling them illogical, stupid, or prudes instead of listening or thinking for yourself.
And if you really think about it, all sides of many groups try to legislate their morality. Think of the Plan B drug being forced on Catholic Hospitals, which are private entities, etc. Anyway, the way I see it is both sides have a little work to do on being less bigoted and more open-minded.
The current war against birth control illustrates all three phenomena of control:
"I hate my profligate urges, but at least I can feel better about them by cracking down on yours."
"Hey, no fair getting laid twice a week! My husband barely wants me once a month!"
Them: "Promiscuous behavior is immoral because it creates unintentional babies."
You: "But birth control ends that risk; therefore, there is no longer any basis for condemning promiscuous behavior. Your moral rule is obsolete."
Them: "Then to protect morality, we must ban birth control."
Isn't that what they call a straw man argument... I mean look at number two, you are invoking your opinion on why people believe certain things (it must be that they aren't getting any, so they don't want me to). You have put those with different opinions than you in a box, and then made up there thoughts so you can be better than them... isn't that what your post was complaining about in the first place?
I am assuming you meant 301 million... what you're saying is all debatable depending on your political persuasion (and some bad facts, but that's ok) Although Bush is not even close to fiscally conservative on many other issues besides the war(like the rest of the so called Republicans seem to be these days.)
I don't think Bush and Castro can even be compared, much less be made to seem that Castro > Bush. Just look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba and scroll down to economy. Basic necessities have to be attained on the Black Market, etc.
Seems that you hate one person so much you have narrowed your sights a little much.
P. S. How did this come up on a thread about Invisible Tunnels? Do you people hate Bush and America that much?!!? Is that all everything comes down to?
sorry... I added a '/' behind the link. I should've previewed. Stuff like that always happens when I try to be sarcastic. I guess I am the Dilbert Scott Adams is talking about.
Slashdot Mirror
That's what they tell us...
record what they are saying into a voice mail on google voice...
...supposed to vote on laws, too... they know what's best for us, we just need to submit and for get about those pesky laws...
I thought it was obvious from the "even America" remark that the author of the summary has a certain leaning or agenda...
viagra ads.... don't we have something else to worry about...
they did... and it failed. they have been able to communicate with the satelite, which keeps reporting that it tries to reboot and fails each time
you may be right... i have heard very little none agenda-based science, therefore I may be a little skeptical, but I am not totally closed-minded. That is why I asked.Notice how some comments before yours were helpful, a lot unlike yours.
Just ask your local car repairman to use r-409a or r-414b (hotshot). It will make it a refrigerator!
Unfortunately, they are working on banning hcfc's as well. And all civilian have been required to use hfc's since '95. (you probably just got mixed up). Europe is already talking about banning hfc's. I am interested to know what they plan on using, propane?, co2?, ammonia. How do we know that the ozone layer doesn't naturally? I mean it closed back up, and I highly doubt it was because we stopped using r-12 and r-502. Seriously, how do we know that the hole was caused by cfc's, I would think if it was and the cfc's somehow defied gravity and got up to the ozone layer there would be multiple holes? P. S. I work on a/c's.
Though I agree that they are mostly the same, the democrat candidates are out there screaming that they will raise taxes, that they will repel the tax cuts. It sounds like most of the country has a flawed mentality about the budget, in order to fix it we neet to cut spending (most of all) and cut taxes, that is the only way to help it. Every candidate (well, the major ones that I have paid attention to) on the democrat side has sai they would raise taxes, redistribute wealth, this is the wrong direction.
Now it is true that the congress has been terrible about this (when the republicans were in power, and now (though on a slightly bigger scale, imo with the democratic congress) if you listen to many of the republican candidates they are talking like they have the right idea, but unfortunately, like you said, I'm not 100% sure I can trust them, but I know without a doubt I can trust them more then any democrat candidate that I have seen.
And experience does matter, not to say that just because one has more experience makes them a better all around candidate would be stretching it. I believe if Obama had more usable experiance: 1. he wouldn't have gotten so riled up about Hillary's comments, maybe he would give some examples of why he was more experianced, not just make some random attack at her 2. He wouldn't be announcing to the world that we wouldn't use in any circumstance a type of weapon, and invade an ally in a region that is unstable.
Lastly, I think that republicans not caring about the middle class has risen to the status of dogma and really has no unbiased empirical proof. If you think caring about the middle class means sticking it to the upper class, then I guess you are right, but oh so wrong at the same time. How about leaving both alone and letting all of us prosper!
Obama has no experience, consider his recent battle of words with Hillary (which Hillary's campaign loved btw), he really has no clue, he even has less of a clue then hillary...
does that mean the republicans are better or worse... maybe neither, but I daresay that most of the candidates on the republican side are more qualified for the office of the president than any on the democratic side...
I would love it if Paul got in, although I disagree with him on some things, but I really think it's going to come down to Gulliani and Clinton.
Disclaimer: The above is my opinion, not to be confused with a troll. At the risk of being a victim of the ever-present groupthink here on slashdot, I am not posting as AC.
http://www.cio.com/article/print/125263
you know....looking at it again i think you're right.....
(a law, decree of a court, etc.)
Is Wired a law magazine?i think he's talking about the next upgrade...
I think that was the point... hitler used his "religion" to increase his position with the people
I just used google's 411 service ( http://labs.google.com/goog411/ ) and it's speech recognition was great. I usually have a hard time with them because of my New Orleans dialect, but it understood every word, opposed to those that can't get the number you're saying ("I'm sorry, I didn't understand you, could you please repeat the WHOLE thing again!").
Europe has been long gone, the US' turn is around the corner
Perspectives are a funny thing, like all those people saying the media is controlled by Republicans, it always seemed to me that the media is controlled by liberals. And they all said the Republicans were for the big companies and Demos were for the little guy, but it seemed to me the policies of the demos kept the so-called little guy down. Perspectives I guess.
Wow... a lot of replies, and some very interesting posts, who would have thought on Slashdot where the group think is usually prevalent
As for as "skewed morality" I think that is an interesting point. Its not clear to me if you are talking about the right or left being skewed, or which one has the proper morality, but I am assuming you mean the "religious". If you really think about it the debate is really not a closed one, both sides have interesting facts and points. The pro-abortionists don't necessarily see the baby as alive, the pro-lifers do. The argument has always been where life begins. The point that most pro-lifers have with birth control is not usually birth control in itself (not anymore anyway), but with certain forms. If you believe that life begins with conception, then there are forms of birth control that kill the embryo and therefore is taking life. Sounds pretty logical to me. The otherside makes logical points as well, I am not saying they don't. It just seems easier for some to dismiss those that oppose their views by calling them illogical, stupid, or prudes instead of listening or thinking for yourself.
And if you really think about it, all sides of many groups try to legislate their morality. Think of the Plan B drug being forced on Catholic Hospitals, which are private entities, etc. Anyway, the way I see it is both sides have a little work to do on being less bigoted and more open-minded.
where did you see anything about religion in the summary or the article?
The current war against birth control illustrates all three phenomena of control:
You: "But birth control ends that risk; therefore, there is no longer any basis for condemning promiscuous behavior. Your moral rule is obsolete."
Them: "Then to protect morality, we must ban birth control."
Isn't that what they call a straw man argument... I mean look at number two, you are invoking your opinion on why people believe certain things (it must be that they aren't getting any, so they don't want me to). You have put those with different opinions than you in a box, and then made up there thoughts so you can be better than them... isn't that what your post was complaining about in the first place?
I am assuming you meant 301 million... what you're saying is all debatable depending on your political persuasion (and some bad facts, but that's ok) Although Bush is not even close to fiscally conservative on many other issues besides the war(like the rest of the so called Republicans seem to be these days.) I don't think Bush and Castro can even be compared, much less be made to seem that Castro > Bush. Just look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba and scroll down to economy. Basic necessities have to be attained on the Black Market, etc. Seems that you hate one person so much you have narrowed your sights a little much. P. S. How did this come up on a thread about Invisible Tunnels? Do you people hate Bush and America that much?!!? Is that all everything comes down to?
yes, cause Castro is such a great man, and so honorable too
sorry... I added a '/' behind the link. I should've previewed. Stuff like that always happens when I try to be sarcastic. I guess I am the Dilbert Scott Adams is talking about.