Well excuse her for being a little bit dumbstruck at the sudden appearance of porn on the computer screen that she isn't in charge of. Would you and I have turned it off immediately? Of course. If it was a Windows box, we both would have hit Windows+D in a split second, hiding the damn thing and then close it through the Task Manager. However, Ms. Amero is a substitute teacher, and probably not very tech savvy. Give her a break.
Actually, disobeying that law is the correct response. Along with trying to get media attention and public support, as well as accepting the consequences of your actions. As long as you make it clear that you're disobeying what you consider to be an unjust law and are willing to face the consequences, then yes, breaking the law is perfectly fine.
Actually, the liberals who are against your right to arm yourself, hunt, drill, and other ideas are like this because of the political dichotomy in the USA. When you go away to college and get all these new liberal ideas (i.e. the live and let live attitudes, and learn to understand that different =/= bad), they tend to reach out to a political party that best embodies these ideas. Since the closest and most visible party would be the Democrats (it certainly isn't the Republicans), they start to espouse all the views of the Democrats. This includes the hypocritical ideas that were originally embodied by someone that were passed onto the party as a whole. That's why I (a Canadian), am doing the research and looking for the party that will best represent me on 3 issues: nuclear energy, copyright reform, and drug laws. Specifically I'm looking for someone who will vote for more nuclear energy, reform copyright to shorter terms, and start regulating drugs, instead of keeping them illegal. Nuclear energy because it shows the ability to make a practical and informed decision about something that many people consider to be a critical issue, copyright reform because it shows the ability to recognize a corrupt set of laws and fix them, and drug laws because it shows the ability to think critically and draw comparisons between prohibition and the current state of affairs. Then again, I'm a cynic.
Actually, in the Roman Catholic Church, it does. The OT and the NT compose the Bible for Catholics. In The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the NT has to be interpreted in light of the Book of Mormon.
But if you are laughing, you have completely missed a very important point.
They reported some inaccurate information. Fine. WHERE did they get that inaccurate information? That is the issue here. If you think that the fact that they reported that WTC 7 had come down (again... described by name, number, and location) BEFORE it actually happened is a "coincidence", then you must be a very big believer in coincidences. Sorry, but that rather stretches believability past the breaking point.
And I did, by the way, find the source of that "radio announcement" of the building coming down. Two separate on-site witnesses reported a red-cross worker, outside the building, holding a radio that was blaring a countdown just before the building collapsed. Their separeate accounts are remarkably consistent.
Of course, that is not a "radio station" (interesting how stories get distorted)... but at least I was able to find the source. You can also find it on youtube with a quick search.
I'd rather not. Why don't you give it to me, since you're so sure that it's solid proof. Or at least give me the search terms.
So, sorry for your disbelief, but some facts are pretty solid:
(1) The BBC reported the building coming down before it did. (What was the source of their information?) This is incontrovertible, since in the video you can SEE the building still standing behind the reporter as she reports that it had collapsed. Some minutes later, it did collapse. The probability of that being coincidence is probably much less than that of you getting struck by lightning in a given year, or killing yourself by slipping in the shower.
And yet people get struck by lightning, as well as slipping in the shower. She's an idiot and should've been fired for reporting a blatant lie, but she fucked up and made shit up, not let loose the information of some grand conspidracy.
(2) Firefighters and red cross workers are on video telling people that the building "is going to come down", and that it is about to "blow up". This, hours after they were removed from the building, and when there was NO external evidence that the building was going to fall. (Remember... before that day skyscrapers had NEVER fallen in this manner, in the history of the world, except for earthquake or demolition. Never. And WTC 7 was not hit by a plane, nor was it even close to the others... closer buildings had little or no damage.)
Firefighters and red cross workers probably wanted people to get the fuck out of there to make their job easier, and lied to get them out of the area.
(3) Outside the building, a countdown was heard on an emergency worker's radio (by MORE THAN ONE eyewitness who reported their stories on video), coinciding with the building's collapse.
Citation please.
If you really think that is all coincidence, then you have a funny view of reality. The laws of probability are practically screaming "no" at you!
The laws of probability state that certain things are improbably (unlikely), not impossible. Next you'll be telling me that a bowling ball and a golf ball dropped from an airplane will hit the ground at the same time.
Because he accidentally used terminology that happens to also be used in the demolition business to refer to something else. And the BBC just fucked up.
1. The concept of a "conspiracy theory" is flawed, and is simply a cop out. There is no such thing as a conspiracy theory. There are just good and bad theories. Labeling an idea a "conspiracy theory" is just a form of jingoism and does nothing to increase the flow of ideas. Labeling something a conspiracy theory is a brilliant tactic to bury an idea as it takes advantage of herd mentality. Judge an idea by its merit and not by its label. Here on Slashdot extremely brilliant and extremely stupid ideas are posited all the time, so why now are we disallowed to discus a certain set of ideas? I thought there was a strong freedom/libertarian mindset here...
A conspiracy theory is a theory that relies on the existence of a conspiracy to keep it quiet. Most of these tend to be bad, as most people realize how difficult it is to keep quiet about things on a large scale. Look at your friends. The more people that are in on something, the more likely it is to get out. As for judging an idea by its merit, fair enough. In my opinion, this idea has no merit. And no one's forbidding you from discussing certain ideas, the editor was just asking people not to bring it up. A perfectly reasonable request, seeing as how a lot of the people who come here are interested in science.
2. If you examine history, conspiracies are actually the norm and not an aberration. Look at Rome, or the times of Shakespeare, or Nazi Germany, or the French revolution, etc etc. Look at the behavior of the current administration of the United States and say there haven't been conspiratory behaviors with a straight face. All a conspiracy means is that more than one person plans together to do something secretly. That happens ALL THE TIME, whether criminally or not.
Yep. However, most of those conspiracies were found out. It's incredibly hard to keep a conspiracy quiet for any amount of time. These conspiracies usually fall apart as soon as they've enacted their plans. People are incompetent.
3. As Slashdot readers many of you consider yourselves to be scientifically minded and aware of logical fallacies. Why does this mindset breakdown when it comes to politically charged events? You are labeling people nut cases and tinfoil hat wearers and conspiracy theorists the same way people were labeled communists during the McCarthy era. The ad hominem attacks are relentless.
Except that we aren't throwing them in jail. Just mocking them.
4. In light of the awareness that several agencies in the US with billions of dollars in funding and specific programs for controlling the flow of information DO exist, wouldn't you think that Slashdot, a hub of meme flow on the internet, would be a specific target of operations? Opinions are manipulated on the net regularly. You only have to look at China with their "wangyou" (internet friends) that are paid 50 cents chinese for each message they post that supports a certain agenda. The manipulation in the US is much more subtle. Teams of PhDs and psychologists know what buttons to press to get a certain response out of a self-admittedly obsessive compulsive crowd of nerds.
And not one of these people would gladly go to the press to guarantee their name going down in history as the one who blew the lid off the conspiracy? Or wait, the media is in on it too! See the problem with suggesting conspiracies? Either everyone is in on it, or the people in on it at are the best liars and deceivers known to mankind.
5. Building 7 was never hit by an airplane. The owner of the building admitted to it being demolished, then reneged his statement. There are videos of reporters describing building 7's fall while it is still standing in the background. It took SEVEN years for investigators to come up with a reason for the building to fall the way it did. Is it possible that the SEVEN years were spent honing a story plausible enough to convin
They could give people complete and unfettered access to every single piece of information the government has, and they still wouldn't be satisfied. Why? Because they've left out that one database that contains all the information they're looking for. Face it, conspiracy folk will never be satisfied with explanations because they don't want to be wrong. Cognitive dissonance and all that.
And even that isn't fully accurate due to various wind resistance effects, turning this into a differential equation. In this case, the speed would quickly reach an equilibrium point, or terminal velocity. And exactly what speed that is would be very difficult to calculate. Which is why it took so damn long to model it.
An earthquake is an unfair model to use. It involves the entire ground shifting back and forth, causing lateral stress. The stress that caused the WTC to collapse was due to stressed joints and gravity. The only lateral stress was the initial collision, which obviously didn't have enough energy to knock it on its side immediately. Also, scale models suffer from the square-cube law.
I would like to direct your attention towards Benford's law. The one about the frequency of the first digit in natural data. Not to be confused with Benford's law of controversy, although equally applicable to the situation.
Alas, it is a dupe. It's even the same cnet story. What a shame. I was hoping that some other intelligent judge in your crazy country managed to use some common sense.
So as to demonize those damned Tibetans. Obviously, both sides are full of bullshit. However, the Chinese are do not hold the moral high ground, if there is even any to be found these days.
Who cares why he does it? Maybe he likes to run a clean sweep to determine that only what he wants is on his box. Maybe he's a paranoid schizophrenic who has voices that won't shut up until he reinstalls. Maybe he gets bored and likes struggling with a new install because it keeps his brain fresh. It doesn't matter why he does it, just that he does. And there's no reason for EA to lock him out just because he has to reinstall the game.
That's not what he's saying. There are tons of companies that sell you a box with Windows Vista installed on it. Only Apple sell you one with OS X on it.
I'd say 4chan is more of a grab bag of various chemicals, rather than any one specific drug. Anything and everything can be found on 4chan, just not usually when you want it.
Now, twitter, while this is approaching a sane argument, he's not saying who gets taught what. He's advocating different teaching methods. I'm calling you out on this lovely straw man you've created. I mean, yeah, hoarding knowledge is definitely a despicable thing, and everyone should be given the opportunity to access bits and bytes of information. But that's not what we're talking about. we're talking about how to teach people. Surely you'd agree that someone like you (who clearly can't learn from their mistakes, given your posting history and piss-poor karma) needs to be taught in a different method than someone who can learn from their mistakes after a few failures.
Slashdot Mirror
Well excuse her for being a little bit dumbstruck at the sudden appearance of porn on the computer screen that she isn't in charge of. Would you and I have turned it off immediately? Of course. If it was a Windows box, we both would have hit Windows+D in a split second, hiding the damn thing and then close it through the Task Manager. However, Ms. Amero is a substitute teacher, and probably not very tech savvy. Give her a break.
Although I'm kind of curious what the charge of disorderly conduct was for.
Actually, disobeying that law is the correct response. Along with trying to get media attention and public support, as well as accepting the consequences of your actions. As long as you make it clear that you're disobeying what you consider to be an unjust law and are willing to face the consequences, then yes, breaking the law is perfectly fine.
Actually, the liberals who are against your right to arm yourself, hunt, drill, and other ideas are like this because of the political dichotomy in the USA. When you go away to college and get all these new liberal ideas (i.e. the live and let live attitudes, and learn to understand that different =/= bad), they tend to reach out to a political party that best embodies these ideas. Since the closest and most visible party would be the Democrats (it certainly isn't the Republicans), they start to espouse all the views of the Democrats. This includes the hypocritical ideas that were originally embodied by someone that were passed onto the party as a whole. That's why I (a Canadian), am doing the research and looking for the party that will best represent me on 3 issues: nuclear energy, copyright reform, and drug laws. Specifically I'm looking for someone who will vote for more nuclear energy, reform copyright to shorter terms, and start regulating drugs, instead of keeping them illegal. Nuclear energy because it shows the ability to make a practical and informed decision about something that many people consider to be a critical issue, copyright reform because it shows the ability to recognize a corrupt set of laws and fix them, and drug laws because it shows the ability to think critically and draw comparisons between prohibition and the current state of affairs. Then again, I'm a cynic.
Actually, in the Roman Catholic Church, it does. The OT and the NT compose the Bible for Catholics. In The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the NT has to be interpreted in light of the Book of Mormon.
That's ridiculous. That's not even funny.
Because he accidentally used terminology that happens to also be used in the demolition business to refer to something else. And the BBC just fucked up.
A conspiracy theory is a theory that relies on the existence of a conspiracy to keep it quiet. Most of these tend to be bad, as most people realize how difficult it is to keep quiet about things on a large scale. Look at your friends. The more people that are in on something, the more likely it is to get out. As for judging an idea by its merit, fair enough. In my opinion, this idea has no merit. And no one's forbidding you from discussing certain ideas, the editor was just asking people not to bring it up. A perfectly reasonable request, seeing as how a lot of the people who come here are interested in science.
Yep. However, most of those conspiracies were found out. It's incredibly hard to keep a conspiracy quiet for any amount of time. These conspiracies usually fall apart as soon as they've enacted their plans. People are incompetent.
Except that we aren't throwing them in jail. Just mocking them.
And not one of these people would gladly go to the press to guarantee their name going down in history as the one who blew the lid off the conspiracy? Or wait, the media is in on it too! See the problem with suggesting conspiracies? Either everyone is in on it, or the people in on it at are the best liars and deceivers known to mankind.
They could give people complete and unfettered access to every single piece of information the government has, and they still wouldn't be satisfied. Why? Because they've left out that one database that contains all the information they're looking for. Face it, conspiracy folk will never be satisfied with explanations because they don't want to be wrong. Cognitive dissonance and all that.
And even that isn't fully accurate due to various wind resistance effects, turning this into a differential equation. In this case, the speed would quickly reach an equilibrium point, or terminal velocity. And exactly what speed that is would be very difficult to calculate. Which is why it took so damn long to model it.
An earthquake is an unfair model to use. It involves the entire ground shifting back and forth, causing lateral stress. The stress that caused the WTC to collapse was due to stressed joints and gravity. The only lateral stress was the initial collision, which obviously didn't have enough energy to knock it on its side immediately. Also, scale models suffer from the square-cube law.
Name another steel skyscraper fire that went completely uncontrolled for 7 hours.
I would like to direct your attention towards Benford's law. The one about the frequency of the first digit in natural data. Not to be confused with Benford's law of controversy, although equally applicable to the situation.
Fully loaded. Although, to be fair, they tended to sober up on the way in.
Whoosh!
Alas, it is a dupe. It's even the same cnet story. What a shame. I was hoping that some other intelligent judge in your crazy country managed to use some common sense.
So as to demonize those damned Tibetans. Obviously, both sides are full of bullshit. However, the Chinese are do not hold the moral high ground, if there is even any to be found these days.
My spam has tripled over the past few days. So I'm not getting all of it, but I'm getting a chunk of it.
Who cares why he does it? Maybe he likes to run a clean sweep to determine that only what he wants is on his box. Maybe he's a paranoid schizophrenic who has voices that won't shut up until he reinstalls. Maybe he gets bored and likes struggling with a new install because it keeps his brain fresh. It doesn't matter why he does it, just that he does. And there's no reason for EA to lock him out just because he has to reinstall the game.
That's not what he's saying. There are tons of companies that sell you a box with Windows Vista installed on it. Only Apple sell you one with OS X on it.
I'd say 4chan is more of a grab bag of various chemicals, rather than any one specific drug. Anything and everything can be found on 4chan, just not usually when you want it.
"I'll bite your legs off!"
No, humans are the number one cause of all war, dispute, and strife in the world. Religion is just the #1 scapegoat.
Now, twitter, while this is approaching a sane argument, he's not saying who gets taught what. He's advocating different teaching methods. I'm calling you out on this lovely straw man you've created. I mean, yeah, hoarding knowledge is definitely a despicable thing, and everyone should be given the opportunity to access bits and bytes of information. But that's not what we're talking about. we're talking about how to teach people. Surely you'd agree that someone like you (who clearly can't learn from their mistakes, given your posting history and piss-poor karma) needs to be taught in a different method than someone who can learn from their mistakes after a few failures.