I am afraid the US Libertarian Party has been taken over by right wing people. I tend to call them embarrassed Republicans. So, I'm not sure that most of those who use the title would actually suggest as you indicated.
That said, I want the government out of marriages. Make them civil unions and treat them like the contracts they are. The ceremony can be performed by willing parties, but the contract is all the government should concern themselves with.
Additionally, it solves the stupid debate about allowing gay people the same rights. I also think it shouldn't be restricted to two parties.
I don't want to type, "you should." I try to avoid that. So...
I accept consensus as being, "correct given the information that we have at hand." I am also intimately aware that we've been wrong, pretty much always. To assume that we're no longer wrong is hubris. In fact, I assume we are wrong.
Now, we're often right enough. We can still use Newton's figures and be 'close enough.' However, they're still wrong. Special Relativity? Just last year, yet another paper was released that insists it's wrong.
On the subject of AGW... I actually have taken the time to make a quasi-scholastic study of the science. I have read a great deal and spotted no flaws that were glaringly obvious. However... I also see that, if you read the actual papers, there remain parts that are poorly understood and are speculative.
This doesn't mean I don't think we should stop burning fossil fuels. No. I absolutely agree that we should reduce CO2 outputs. In fact, I'm really, really positive we should do that.
What it does mean is that I'm tired of hearing that it's settled science, well understood, or that the predictions are certain.
Again, I absolutely think we should reduce emissions of problematic gases. Just don't bullshit me and tell me that we understand it completely. We don't. We might not ever understand it completely. We could even be completely wrong.
To go on... Models, such as the Standard Model, are useful. They are "close enough." They are incomplete, as well. That doesn't mean I think we should discard them. It means I think we should continue to refine them. I also think we should stop pretending to know things as certainties when, in fact, we don't. That's why we have confidence ratings, after all.
I do wish I were more adept at putting this into text. My apologies for my lack of communication skills.
Trivially related: Have you listened to the Comey testimony? I caught it in the car, as NPR was doing a special on it. I came home and listened to the rest of it.
It turns out, that's not actually why Trump fired him.
Actually, no. That wasn't me. I also know what "probably" means. You seem to be the type to believe in "alternative fact." I'm not sure we can have a productive conversation.
Feel free to hit my email up. There's also a journal entry that describes (a bit) of where I've been.
Life is good, yes?
I'm also trying to get back into the habit of checking email daily. I kinda fell out of that habit. For a goodly amount of time, I didn't even go online. Crazy, right?
Hell, it seems to hold true for some of the investigators, as well.
I don't even know. I woke up one day and the world was crazy. Political discourse has been reduced to screeching and feces throwing. It's like they're howler monkeys, the electors and elected alike. The media? Wow...
I don't even get it. It used to be that one side would pretend to be better than the other. Now, it's like they've given up all pretense and see who can be the worst. Ethics and implications aren't important. Instead of the spirit of the law, they seem inclined to get as close to breaking it as they can while playing the child's game of, "I'm not touching you!"
Snatch and another AC pointed out a similar word used in South Park. (I've only seen a few episodes.)
Not one woman, that I've ever known, has used that word. Snootch? I have heard "gooch." (Spelling?) Never snootch, however, and I've put my penis into a bunch of women.
Hell no. Well, not in my opinion. I *like* your tone.
Sometimes, being a dick is pretty successful at making people realize problems. Hell, if I recall the remainder of your posts (in this thread) correctly, you weren't even partisan. You might be a dick, but you're my kind of dick.;-)
I am actually not bragging, when I say I have put my penis into a bunch of women. I am actually a wee bit alarmed at the number. It's a lot. I was a man whore for a long time. Really, it's a lot.
I'm not sure if this makes me an authority, however. So, call this an anecdote...
Not one woman, with whom I have conferred, has ever used that nomenclature. Yoni is my favorite, if you're curious. I've even dated professionals who were involved in women's reproduction health. None have used that term. Not even farm girls, or chicks with horses, have used that terminology. They even are from diverse global locations., but none have.
I am a wee bit stoned. However, I'd like to point out that. Have been gone for a bit. I am glad to be back, because of comments like your comment. Slashdot is where I can still go, to see even the most unhinged of views. I don't have crazy homeless people. Instead, I have you. And you are awesome.
Well, no. However, mathematically, it is more probable than not. We have a variety of names for it. The most common one is the Wisdom of Crowds. I believe it is so well accepted that it is even a part of one of the television shows you watch.
Note, I offer no other opinion than that directly stated above.
I just typed and deleted a whole, very silly, reply.
David... I'm just gonna say it like this. I've seen your name before. I haven't been on Slashdot in a while. I've interacted with you. I know you're not dumb. I know better.
Now, I could be mistaken. I want to admit that right now. However....
Unless there's a whole lot of deception going on, they still use containers AND those containers are still fire (and explosion) resistive.
I'm sorry, but do you think they run the bags up a conveyor and just huck the baggage in behind a cargo net? Not to mention, *all* modern luggage is made of material that is fire resistant. On top of that, all modern luggage is explosion resistant - though it's not to a huge extent, but it's surprisingly effective. You can. without any effort, go watch videos of both explosions and see them contained within the luggage itself..
Unless EVERY single news article (that I've seen) and EVERY single documentary (that I've seen) is full of crap, you're WRONG. You're not just wrong. You're wrong in all caps. Sheesh. The cargo hold is filled with individual containers, and has been for some time. They're both fire and explosion resistant. More so, since the events of 9/11.
I am 99.9% certain that I'm correct. I have friends in the industry and have seen a whole lot of documentaries that demonstrate this. I'm not even sure what two-bit airline you speak of.
I hold and offer no opinions on this matter, in specific. Please understand that and understand that I am only going to say something pithy and nearly pointless - unless you want to think about it deeper.
Very, very few things are simple. Chances are, if you think there's a simple answer to complex problems (such as those involving humans), you're wrong. Chances are, you're not just wrong - you're not engaging in critical thinking.
There's a chance you're right. There's a chance that the answer to this is simple. There's the chance that this can be summed up in a one line bit of legislation and a few bumper stickers. However, that's exceedingly unlikely. Offering no other opinion than that, I'd suggest you re-evaluate and seek more details/data.
However, I could have expressed myself better. You aren't an example of the type of person that I'm referring to. No, from reading your post, you seem to have a good understanding.
I'll try to explain a little bit.
Not long ago, someone made the claim that the oceans were going to rise 27', by the year 2050. I pointed out that I was not a climate scientist and then linked them to a number of sources that showed the real predictions, as opposed to his one cite of a journalist who appears to be citing a crackpot.
At this point, they decided that I wasn't a climate scientist (which I'd told them) and that made me unqualified to provide the citations. They also decided I was a Trump voter - curiously enough. They also decided I was a climate change denier and several others joined in.
For starters, the oceans aren't going to rise that much, that quickly - according to all but one paper. I sure as hell didn't vote for Trump. I'm quite comfortable expressing my belief that AGW is real - and have even made a quasi-scholarly pursuit to understand the science in-depth.
That's just one example, of many, that I've seen. Hell, it's not even the worst example, it's the one that was most recent and quickest to type out.
I probably could have expressed this better.
Finally, yes - a scientist. I modeled traffic. My Ph.D. is in Applied Mathematics. If you don't understand why that's science, and why that makes me a scientist, I'm pretty sure we can't have a reasonable discussion.
My assumption would be creative and marketing mentoring.
I'd definitely *not* think that the mentors would be top developers. In fact, I'm pretty sure they'd never do that. It'd make a horrible show, I suspect. I don't actually watch much television, so maybe that's part of the problem as to why I'd not think any such thing. However, I suspect top developers would make the show even less likable to the average reality show watcher. I'd absolutely not think that's the direction they went - and would be kinda surprised if they had.
That said, if they had made it with top developers, I might have watched an episode or two - if I happened to see it in my online travels. I'd not seek it out, no.
This is tangentially related and I'm not sure it helps and I don't want it to seem like moralizing/preaching. I've found it easier (and more accurate) to not say, "You'd think..." Instead, I'll say, "I'd think..." I'm also working on not saying, "You should..." Instead, I say, "You could..." 'Snot really important, just an observation and something I've worked on. In this case, I'd absolutely not think that they'd be using top developers. I'd kinda hope that they did employ some, but I'd not expect them to be a main feature/host/decider.
Maybe I'm using the nomenclature wrong? I'm not sure - but it's the executive who nominates and appoints them. To me, that's kinda the ultimate in checks and balances, while impeaching is post facto.
Slashdot Mirror
I am afraid the US Libertarian Party has been taken over by right wing people. I tend to call them embarrassed Republicans. So, I'm not sure that most of those who use the title would actually suggest as you indicated.
That said, I want the government out of marriages. Make them civil unions and treat them like the contracts they are. The ceremony can be performed by willing parties, but the contract is all the government should concern themselves with.
Additionally, it solves the stupid debate about allowing gay people the same rights. I also think it shouldn't be restricted to two parties.
I don't want to type, "you should." I try to avoid that. So...
I accept consensus as being, "correct given the information that we have at hand." I am also intimately aware that we've been wrong, pretty much always. To assume that we're no longer wrong is hubris. In fact, I assume we are wrong.
Now, we're often right enough. We can still use Newton's figures and be 'close enough.' However, they're still wrong. Special Relativity? Just last year, yet another paper was released that insists it's wrong.
This is one example:
Link.
There are more.
What many accept as fact, is not actually fact.
Let's try to put this together?
On the subject of AGW... I actually have taken the time to make a quasi-scholastic study of the science. I have read a great deal and spotted no flaws that were glaringly obvious. However... I also see that, if you read the actual papers, there remain parts that are poorly understood and are speculative.
This doesn't mean I don't think we should stop burning fossil fuels. No. I absolutely agree that we should reduce CO2 outputs. In fact, I'm really, really positive we should do that.
What it does mean is that I'm tired of hearing that it's settled science, well understood, or that the predictions are certain.
Again, I absolutely think we should reduce emissions of problematic gases. Just don't bullshit me and tell me that we understand it completely. We don't. We might not ever understand it completely. We could even be completely wrong.
To go on... Models, such as the Standard Model, are useful. They are "close enough." They are incomplete, as well. That doesn't mean I think we should discard them. It means I think we should continue to refine them. I also think we should stop pretending to know things as certainties when, in fact, we don't. That's why we have confidence ratings, after all.
I do wish I were more adept at putting this into text. My apologies for my lack of communication skills.
Right. Wouldn't nomination and appointment be the penultimate checks and balances? More so at the larger scale, than at the individual level?
While pithy, it's also untrue. We tend to talk about the things we do. It'd make pretty bizarre conversations, if we didn't.
Trivially related: Have you listened to the Comey testimony? I caught it in the car, as NPR was doing a special on it. I came home and listened to the rest of it.
It turns out, that's not actually why Trump fired him.
Actually, no. That wasn't me. I also know what "probably" means. You seem to be the type to believe in "alternative fact." I'm not sure we can have a productive conversation.
Feel free to hit my email up. There's also a journal entry that describes (a bit) of where I've been.
Life is good, yes?
I'm also trying to get back into the habit of checking email daily. I kinda fell out of that habit. For a goodly amount of time, I didn't even go online. Crazy, right?
Nice. Thanks for paying for my shoes.
Sadly, that doesn't surprise me. It might also be one of those charges where not even money and a good lawyer can help me.
Hell, it seems to hold true for some of the investigators, as well.
I don't even know. I woke up one day and the world was crazy. Political discourse has been reduced to screeching and feces throwing. It's like they're howler monkeys, the electors and elected alike. The media? Wow...
I don't even get it. It used to be that one side would pretend to be better than the other. Now, it's like they've given up all pretense and see who can be the worst. Ethics and implications aren't important. Instead of the spirit of the law, they seem inclined to get as close to breaking it as they can while playing the child's game of, "I'm not touching you!"
Snatch and another AC pointed out a similar word used in South Park. (I've only seen a few episodes.)
Not one woman, that I've ever known, has used that word. Snootch? I have heard "gooch." (Spelling?) Never snootch, however, and I've put my penis into a bunch of women.
Hell no. Well, not in my opinion. I *like* your tone.
Sometimes, being a dick is pretty successful at making people realize problems. Hell, if I recall the remainder of your posts (in this thread) correctly, you weren't even partisan. You might be a dick, but you're my kind of dick. ;-)
I am actually not bragging, when I say I have put my penis into a bunch of women. I am actually a wee bit alarmed at the number. It's a lot. I was a man whore for a long time. Really, it's a lot.
I'm not sure if this makes me an authority, however. So, call this an anecdote...
Not one woman, with whom I have conferred, has ever used that nomenclature. Yoni is my favorite, if you're curious. I've even dated professionals who were involved in women's reproduction health. None have used that term. Not even farm girls, or chicks with horses, have used that terminology. They even are from diverse global locations., but none have.
It must be my lack of exposure...
In recent history, isn't this the exception to the rule? Also, it seems like a whole lot of work.
And no, I don't hate Apple. Not even remotely.
I am a wee bit stoned. However, I'd like to point out that. Have been gone for a bit. I am glad to be back, because of comments like your comment. Slashdot is where I can still go, to see even the most unhinged of views. I don't have crazy homeless people. Instead, I have you. And you are awesome.
You're a dick. You're not wrong, you're a dick. I like you. You should stick around.
Well, no. However, mathematically, it is more probable than not. We have a variety of names for it. The most common one is the Wisdom of Crowds. I believe it is so well accepted that it is even a part of one of the television shows you watch.
Note, I offer no other opinion than that directly stated above.
The unfortunate thing is I can't even say the person you replied to is mentally handicapped. I don't even know. I can no longer really tell.
I just typed and deleted a whole, very silly, reply.
David... I'm just gonna say it like this. I've seen your name before. I haven't been on Slashdot in a while. I've interacted with you. I know you're not dumb. I know better.
Umm...
Now, I could be mistaken. I want to admit that right now. However....
Unless there's a whole lot of deception going on, they still use containers AND those containers are still fire (and explosion) resistive.
I'm sorry, but do you think they run the bags up a conveyor and just huck the baggage in behind a cargo net? Not to mention, *all* modern luggage is made of material that is fire resistant. On top of that, all modern luggage is explosion resistant - though it's not to a huge extent, but it's surprisingly effective. You can. without any effort, go watch videos of both explosions and see them contained within the luggage itself..
Unless EVERY single news article (that I've seen) and EVERY single documentary (that I've seen) is full of crap, you're WRONG. You're not just wrong. You're wrong in all caps. Sheesh. The cargo hold is filled with individual containers, and has been for some time. They're both fire and explosion resistant. More so, since the events of 9/11.
I am 99.9% certain that I'm correct. I have friends in the industry and have seen a whole lot of documentaries that demonstrate this. I'm not even sure what two-bit airline you speak of.
I hold and offer no opinions on this matter, in specific. Please understand that and understand that I am only going to say something pithy and nearly pointless - unless you want to think about it deeper.
Very, very few things are simple. Chances are, if you think there's a simple answer to complex problems (such as those involving humans), you're wrong. Chances are, you're not just wrong - you're not engaging in critical thinking.
There's a chance you're right. There's a chance that the answer to this is simple. There's the chance that this can be summed up in a one line bit of legislation and a few bumper stickers. However, that's exceedingly unlikely. Offering no other opinion than that, I'd suggest you re-evaluate and seek more details/data.
That's funny.
However, I could have expressed myself better. You aren't an example of the type of person that I'm referring to. No, from reading your post, you seem to have a good understanding.
I'll try to explain a little bit.
Not long ago, someone made the claim that the oceans were going to rise 27', by the year 2050. I pointed out that I was not a climate scientist and then linked them to a number of sources that showed the real predictions, as opposed to his one cite of a journalist who appears to be citing a crackpot.
At this point, they decided that I wasn't a climate scientist (which I'd told them) and that made me unqualified to provide the citations. They also decided I was a Trump voter - curiously enough. They also decided I was a climate change denier and several others joined in.
For starters, the oceans aren't going to rise that much, that quickly - according to all but one paper. I sure as hell didn't vote for Trump. I'm quite comfortable expressing my belief that AGW is real - and have even made a quasi-scholarly pursuit to understand the science in-depth.
That's just one example, of many, that I've seen. Hell, it's not even the worst example, it's the one that was most recent and quickest to type out.
I probably could have expressed this better.
Finally, yes - a scientist. I modeled traffic. My Ph.D. is in Applied Mathematics. If you don't understand why that's science, and why that makes me a scientist, I'm pretty sure we can't have a reasonable discussion.
My assumption would be creative and marketing mentoring.
I'd definitely *not* think that the mentors would be top developers. In fact, I'm pretty sure they'd never do that. It'd make a horrible show, I suspect. I don't actually watch much television, so maybe that's part of the problem as to why I'd not think any such thing. However, I suspect top developers would make the show even less likable to the average reality show watcher. I'd absolutely not think that's the direction they went - and would be kinda surprised if they had.
That said, if they had made it with top developers, I might have watched an episode or two - if I happened to see it in my online travels. I'd not seek it out, no.
This is tangentially related and I'm not sure it helps and I don't want it to seem like moralizing/preaching. I've found it easier (and more accurate) to not say, "You'd think..." Instead, I'll say, "I'd think..." I'm also working on not saying, "You should..." Instead, I say, "You could..." 'Snot really important, just an observation and something I've worked on. In this case, I'd absolutely not think that they'd be using top developers. I'd kinda hope that they did employ some, but I'd not expect them to be a main feature/host/decider.
Maybe I'm using the nomenclature wrong? I'm not sure - but it's the executive who nominates and appoints them. To me, that's kinda the ultimate in checks and balances, while impeaching is post facto.
And booze.