She is someone who is a role model, and has lead a good life.
There are people who can't stand that, it reminds them of how little they've done. So they try to tear it down.
Oh seriously! Come on man... espouse her all you want, but elevating her demagoguery to the status of a role-model?
Look, I am not a big fan of either party - but lets call a spade a spade here shall we!
She was just present at the right place at the right time. Are there qualities in her worth appreciating? Sure.
But remember she is just another politician -- and you always gotta have a healthy skepticism towards them. They are your public servants; not the other way around.
There are millions of women - both the regular and famous - in America that have led a life far greater in stature than Palin. Palin is just another American who is managing the challenge of family and work -- millions of working women do this everyday.
And don't forget by your definition - even Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton are great role models -- even if I suspect they belong to a party whose views you disagree with.
So tone it down... Debate the policies, don't hate the person! And perhaps look up to more lofty examples of role models -- Mother Teresa, Helen Keller.
I would like to introduce you to Joe Biden, Vice President and first in line to become POTUS. . . . . You were saying?
Are you freaking kidding me? Are you so enamored by Palin that you refuse to see any of her follies?
Perhaps you should re-watch the 2008 Vice Presidential Debate.
XML, XSD, XSLT and XSLT-FO
Which of those have anything to do with semantics?
True, more to do with structure than semantics, but usually semantics can be derived from structure, if the structure is meaningful.
For example: <Thing> <Place> <Volcano></Volcano></Place></Thing> . . .
A meaningful structure in XML can itself lead to semantics. XSLT, XSL-FO can then just transform it to whatever flavor.
What I am trying to understand here is that -- why do we have to micro-annotate everything? Can't search engines/browsers do lookup of commonly found words and figure out context on their own with their AI algorithms. Web designers can provide a little nudge or help where its needed to parse difficult structure.
Leaving every semantic detail open to coding will further exacerbate the problem of verbosity, not to mention obfuscation for the human in order to enable it to be parsed by the machines. Shouldn't machines/algorithms do the heavy work here than the web designers?
: Every Stop and Shop; Shaws; Dave's; around here is sprinkled with weigh scales for produce that instantly spit out a bar code print label. You should try one of these. Hopefully a big colorful touch screen with pictures of produce buttons on it is not too much to handle.
: People who use this reasoning miss the entire point about technology. The whole point is to replace mindless tasks with machines, so humans could be better augmented and utilized at tasks that machines are not good at. You think the person mindlessly checking out is building their skill set? In fact, I would say that they are better off -- perhaps it will force them to acquire new skills that can be effectively leveraged. I find this American attitude of lamenting the loss of low skilled jobs particularly amusing. What did you think? The burger flipping job you got of high school should be enough to last you a lifetime. That is not a mark of nation with leadership, but rather a signal of stagnation. Change is eternal. Change is good. Americans should be at the forefront of this, and thankfully due to many geeks, nerds -- we have been until now. While I concede there is a lack of human interaction with the checkout person, but then the same technology has now given you ways to connect with people not imaginable even a couple of decades ago.
My sincerest request to you is to give it another chance. Try the self-checkout again --- if not for the reasoning proposed here, then for the sheer sake of challenging your set of beliefs; discovering something new; or perhaps for coming up with a cogent reason rather than the 'bullshit in person' subjective bias.
Predictably, half the comments here reply, "Oh, wow, this test is easy except the Latin/Greek because that's not important!"
Well, bullshit on all counts.
(1) The purpose of learning Latin and ancient Greek is not to enable you to speak Latin and ancient Greek. They've already been dead languages for millennia and they were arguably even more dead then (Greece being even less relevant). It's an exercise in the study of language and of foundations of European culture and literature. You don't get the same experience by learning "Japanese for anime fans".
Now I mostly agree with what you say in your remaining post - except this highlighted part here. This may seem like nit-picking but humor me here. While I have no doubt that Latin and Greek give you amazing insight into Occident culture, and even into origins of English words for that matter -- I am though always perplexed that there is little to no testing on oriental culture or languages. Languages like Sanskrit, Chinese, and Japanese have a very rich cultural heritage that deserves a place equal in stature to that accorded to Latin and Greek.
Perhaps it is just as well that the era of such testing has passed. With a slightly more accessible English language, "the other side" of the world is able to point out that the insight provided by Latin and Greek are not the only ones. It maybe "Japanese for anime fans" -- frivolous and trifle it may seem; but it probably provides a perspective missing in Latin and Greek. You cannot trivialize the gain of such a perspective, even if your point about learning Latin and Greek is valid.
P.S: English is not my first language, nor my second for that matter.
Sorry, but you're wrong there. I love Planned Parenthood. I agree they do good work and I hope they keep on doing it. Unfortunately, they also provide abortions. I have a problem with that. I know you think abortions are a good thing, but I don't Not only do the majority of tax payers agree with me, but federal law also states that it funding abortions is forbidden.... lots and lots of rambling
How do you know that the majority of tax payers agree with you? Is it just because it is your favourite cause? Rather, how can you even speak on behalf of the "majority" of tax payers? It's bull**** like this that makes me cringe.
I am presuming from your posts that you are a man... Why the f*** do men even decide to take a stand on abortion and intensely at that? Shouldn't you defer it to the women? Let them decide... For fuck's sake --- they go through all the trouble, and with all the flag-waving-freedom-laced-slogans that should be clear that it is *their* body and they have the right to decide whatever they want to with it. Freedom is not about -- "Hey here is freedom as long as I do not have any vested cause in your freedom".
No Vagina... no opinion!
Bullying and walking over people is never an asset in a civilized society. Only about 2% of people are like that, and they cause almost all of the problems....
You are being a bit delusional here, confusing an ideal (should be...) with reality (what is..). What you state may be true, but bullying and walking over people are almost as necessary to this society as the lack of it. What do you think the police/military do? In fact, bullying/lack of order/law of the jungle was one of the reasons for development of religion - a legacy that has now become more a burden than benefit.
And by the way, where do you get that 2% figure from? Sources?
Most humans, despite the beliefs to the contrary are more or less decent people, there's just this nasty tendency towards confirmation bias that makes it seem otherwise. People tend to be social and without those 1-2% individuals that behave like that, I'm really not convinced that people would behave like that.
This has only happened in recent history and with the advent of strict societal structure, and consistent standards. Until we decided that it was best to cooperate for the combined existence/propagation of our species. We are like any other animal on this earth, and evolution gives ample proof that survival of the fittest is the name of the game.
Yes, most humans -- hell, in fact most organisms are more or less decent in disposition, but the definition of "decency" varies widely even amongst humans -- my definition of decency may not jive with yours or may even be downright offensive. It may be true, that modern humans more or less share a common standard of decency but even amongst us that standard varies quite a bit -- this is why we have cultural differences, and governing differences.
You do realize that psychology isn't actually science, right? And that argumentum ad hominems just make you look like a dumbass.
And your proof for psychology not being a science being? You do realize that your statement is almost as unsubstantiated as you accuse your parent's to be. And that last sentence you added in the above -- what is that if not bullying? Care to practice what you preach? Or do you belong to the other "2%"?
Perhaps the biggest counter-proofs to your statements is the tone in which discussions are held on
I would rather say that most people are more emotional rather than decent -- you appeal to those emotions in just the right way (read as manipulate) and even the most supposedly "decent" people will go on to commit heinous crimes -- even more so as a group.
What makes you so sure that the info is encrypted on the laptop? Are you assuming that it is? Does the article state that it is?
I said there is a high probability not that I am completely sure. Are you aware of how organizations work with their IT infrastructure? Or do you just think that they buy computer stuff and distribute it to their employees?
Any big organization will have a plan in place for such an event as this -- it is fairly common to expect that laptops can be stolen/misplaced. And that I can be 100% sure that they have some procedure and definitely some protection layers for the data.
I stated this in my last post -- perhaps read a little more before getting a sound-byte in?
It is much harder to find a job than to keep one.