I would argue that there is a right to privacy, and that it exists regardless of whether it is explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. As a justification, I point to the Ninth Amendment, which states "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." A right does not need to be in the Constitution to be had. No rights are granted. Rather, the Constitution states that rights already existing may not be infringed.
In addition, you then do not need to have the deadly fear of public attributes that permeates Java programming. If I want a boolean configuration for some class, I can just make a public boolean value to be modified. If I later decide to add some extra processing whenever that value is changed, I can make it into a property, without changing the outward-facing interface. This change from publicly accessible variable to a function is impossible in Java without changing the calling code, and so you end up with the common wisdom that everything must be accessed through getters and setters in case you want to change it later.
Mods. Bethesda has one of the best user communities for making mods. Any Bethesda game should only ever be purchased for the PC because the mods will extend and improve the game dramatically.
"Oh, there's a game-breaking bug for this quest?" There's a mod for it, faster than the official patch.
"I find the levelling system to be annoying." There's a mod for it.
"I want a new guild, with new questlines, and new NPCs across the world." There's a mod for it.
"I want a complete world conversion with a brand new storyline, balanced gameplay, and an in-depth world." There's a mod for it.
"I want to ride a pink zebra while casting spells that will turn villagers into anthropomorphic wombats." There's a mod for it.
I develop my wheel in North America. You then develop your wheel in Europe. Later on, there is communication between us. I claim that you have violated my patent, and indeed, you have. If something is obvious enough to be developed in parallel, why are we giving a monopoly to the one that happens to be first?
So you're saying humans don't breed humans? Every human goes through a "non-human" embryonic stage on the way to being born?
Yes. I realized after the post that I was using terms rather ambiguously and without clear definitions. In this post, I will use the word "human" to refer to a being which must be respected in order to be acting ethically. Only a human can be murdered, all other forms of life are only killed. I will use "homo sapien" to refer to something that is biologically human, rather than ethically human.
All currently known humans are homo sapiens, but that is not something inherent to the definition. It is incidental to the idea of human. In a similar manner, all hunters wear orange, but wearing orange is not something that is inherent to the act of being a hunter. Being a homo sapien is not a condition necessary to be a human, but is simply a property held by all known humans.
Moreover, everyone understands that abortion kills a developing human. Arguing over whether a zygote, embryo, or fetus is a "person" is pointless because the result is the same. The growing thing/person is killed and will never be born.
I would say that abortion kills a developing homo sapien. The growing homo sapien is killed, and will never develop further. However, I would say that the question of whether the homo sapien is indeed human is of key importance. If the homo sapien is not human, then murder is not possibile. I would not call the destruction of bacteria by my immune system murder, even though they are alive and that I am indeed killing them. Similarly, if the developing homo sapien is not human, then any killing of it cannot be murder. Note that I do not say that if it is human, then the killing is a murder. The condition of humanity is a necessary condition for murder, not a sufficient condition.
Personally, I think if any circumstance can legitimate gives you power to decide life and death, it's when you're growing that life inside you, but people need to be honest about what exactly is going on in an abortion and understand that normal rules for other situations may not apply.
This sounds rather similar to the Unconscious Violinist argument. Even if the developing homo sapien is human, its killing is not necessarily murder. I think that we are in agreement about this, if I have read your argument correctly.
Any Jew is a human, because one cannot be Jewish without also being human. An embryo is something separate and distinct from human. A human develops from an embryo, but an embryo is not a human.
As to a definition of "child", I would say that it is a developing "human". Though, that just diverts the question back to what is a "human". I would say that being a "human" is not a statement of genetics, or parentage, or potential, but one of intelligence. That which can think is "human" for all purpose of ethics. That which cannot think is not "human" for all purposes of ethics. If we were to find some intelligent species outside of homo sapien, then murdering such a creature would be just as unethical as murdering an adult homo sapien.
A person who has brain damage and no longer has any ability to think is no longer "human", and turning off the life support has no more ethical ramifications than burying a corpse. Something to be done with respect, but not something equivalent to murder. Embryos, being unable to think, fall under this same category. Abortions are not something to be taken lightly, nor performed without respect, but the flesh being killed is not human, and so there is no murder in the act.
The job of the military is to follow orders of the executive branch. The point of the military is to kill or intimidate foreigners and to protect national power.
I would argue that there is language to prohibit it.
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
Removing things from the public domain, including works upon which derivative works may have been made, does nothing "to promote the progress of science and useful arts" and is therefore prohibited.
On an unrelated not, I could see an argument being made that copyrights may neither be signed off to another person nor inherited in any manner. After all, the rights are secured only "to authors and inventors", not "to authors, inventors, and other related people".
I have noticed that one of the amazing things about politics (Using "amazing" as "It amazes me that it happens.", not "This is an awesome thing.".) is the skill by which politicians name things. Wordings are carefully chosen for the maximum emotional impact without regard to the truth. In this matter, I think that we need to look both for accuracy and emotional impact.
Therefore, I propose saying "habeus corpus being ignored" instead of "habeus corpus has been revoked". The Constitution is the the supreme law of the land, and any laws passed under it must be in accordance with the Constitution. Therefore, "being ignored" is more accurate than "has been revoked", since a law passed by Congress has no authority to override the Constitution. Yes, they ignore it on a frequent basis, but it is important to frame the issues in ways that benefit us.
In addition, "being ignored" gives a better emotional impact as compared to "has been revoked". "Being ignored" has the implication that the change is temporary, illicit, and to be worked against. "Has been revoked" has the implication that the change is permanent, legitimate, and something that may be a good change, none of which are implications that we wish to have.
I agree that citizens should yell and screech at politicians when they misbehave. However, in an ideal world, it should not be necessary to constantly baby-sit the politicians. Such a system has all of the disadvantages of a direct democracy (Citizens need to stay aware of every issue.) and all of the disadvantages of a republic (Politicians may not represent those who voted for them.) with none of the advantages of either (Citizens having a direct voice on issues for direct democracy, or politicians allowing citizens to devote more time to other issues for a republic.).
Mass, not gravity. If there is bound energy, it manifests as mass. A compressed spring is ever-so-slightly more massive than a relaxed spring. The main place where this is noticed is with very strong forces, such as the strong nuclear force.
I believe they get around it by saying that all disputes must be decided by arbitration, and not by a class action lawsuit. Therefore, it is not depriving someone of the court system, only of the most useful part of it.
I found the exact opposite problem in high school. There was the assumption that everything taught in the previous grade was completely forgotten over the summer, and so half of the classtime was devoted to review of what was taught the previous semester. If we could just move on instead of repeating things over and over, we could have learned so much more.
With regard to your specific example of trig identities, practically nobody keeps those memorized. In that case, the important thing is to know that they are there, and how to use them after you look up the identities
I would say that it always belongs to the world, but that for a limited time, we pay the artist for having made it. The form by which we pay them is the protection of a monopoly for that work. If we had an infallible method by which to determine the value of each new work, then we would be perfectly justified in paying the artist that sum and having everything be in the public domain, to use and expand upon as the public sees fit. Since we do not have such a method, we much rely on the public to assign worth to each work. We do this by guaranteeing the artist control over the work for a given time. After that time, control returns to the world, as the world has owned the piece from the beginning.
I'm curious. It seems like a voluntary DDoS is nothing more than the digital equivalent of a sit-in protest. In each, there is a point to be made beyond simple, malicious destruction. In each, the underlying infrastructure is left undamaged. In each, the method of protest is to do as normal customers do, but more so, whether by sitting in the dining area for extended periods of time, or by requesting the site continuously for extended periods of time.
Do you have any opinion as to whether this analogy is valid?
Not common, but I saw it a few times in elementary school. Mostly, the curriculum wants to start giving the basics of algebra without having to explain the concept of variables to students. Mostly, they just leave a blank spot to indicate that a number is missing from the equation. Sometimes they put an underscore or the parentheses to show where the blank spot is.
If I buy the phone, I expect to own it. Even if it is on a rent-to-buy plan like the phone company subsidized contracts, I should have more rights to the phone than Apple does. If I have a phone that I have bought, and someone else has a program that he has made for it, I do not see any moral reason by which a third party, Apple, can restrict my access to my own phone.
The lack of lithium in the universe is one of the great unsolved mysteries in astronomy.
In solar fusion, it is rather difficult to form Li from H and He. The "normal" form of He is He-4. If H-1 is added to this, Li-5 is formed. However, Li-5 is not stable, and decays to He-5, which decays to He-4. Therefore, it is not possible to form stable Li using the most abundant isotopes of H and He.
Heavier elements are usually formed by combining multiple He-4 nuclei. This can give Be-8, C-12, O-16, and so on. These elements and isotopes show correspondingly high abundances in the universe as a whole.
In order to form any isotope of Li, the Li-5 step must be completely avoided. Instead of adding H-1 to He-4, either H-2 or H-3 must be added, forming stable Li-6 or Li-7. The H-2 and H-3 are present in much lower concentrations than H-1, and so we are much less likely for these to interact with He-4. There is some interaction, which is where the current Li comes from.
Not that the actual Video Professor teaching tool is a scam.
About two-thirds of the way down in the article:
Another scam: Video Professor. Users are offered in game currency if they sign up to receive a free learning CD from Video Professor. The user is told they pay nothing except a $10 shipping charge. But the fine print, on a different page from checkout, tells them they are really getting a whole set of CDs and will be billed $189.95 unless they return them. Most users never return them because they don't know about the extra charge. Woot. Again, sites like Offerpal and SuperRewards flow these offers through to game developers. See here for more on the Video Professor scam.
So, Video Professor is a scam, but it's a minor point in the article.
Slashdot Mirror
I would argue that there is a right to privacy, and that it exists regardless of whether it is explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. As a justification, I point to the Ninth Amendment, which states "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." A right does not need to be in the Constitution to be had. No rights are granted. Rather, the Constitution states that rights already existing may not be infringed.
In addition, you then do not need to have the deadly fear of public attributes that permeates Java programming. If I want a boolean configuration for some class, I can just make a public boolean value to be modified. If I later decide to add some extra processing whenever that value is changed, I can make it into a property, without changing the outward-facing interface. This change from publicly accessible variable to a function is impossible in Java without changing the calling code, and so you end up with the common wisdom that everything must be accessed through getters and setters in case you want to change it later.
I count once, and come up with a number. I count again, and come up with a different number. Obviously there is a margin of error in my counting.
I It is what the US was based off of.
Wrong. http://freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingfathers.html
Mods. Bethesda has one of the best user communities for making mods. Any Bethesda game should only ever be purchased for the PC because the mods will extend and improve the game dramatically.
"Oh, there's a game-breaking bug for this quest?" There's a mod for it, faster than the official patch.
"I find the levelling system to be annoying." There's a mod for it.
"I want a new guild, with new questlines, and new NPCs across the world." There's a mod for it.
"I want a complete world conversion with a brand new storyline, balanced gameplay, and an in-depth world." There's a mod for it.
"I want to ride a pink zebra while casting spells that will turn villagers into anthropomorphic wombats." There's a mod for it.
Except that this clause has already made it to the Supreme Court and has been upheld as valid. http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/supreme-court-backs-binding-arbitration-agreements/2012/01/16/gIQAg4LuGQ_story.html
I develop my wheel in North America. You then develop your wheel in Europe. Later on, there is communication between us. I claim that you have violated my patent, and indeed, you have. If something is obvious enough to be developed in parallel, why are we giving a monopoly to the one that happens to be first?
So you're saying humans don't breed humans? Every human goes through a "non-human" embryonic stage on the way to being born?
Yes. I realized after the post that I was using terms rather ambiguously and without clear definitions. In this post, I will use the word "human" to refer to a being which must be respected in order to be acting ethically. Only a human can be murdered, all other forms of life are only killed. I will use "homo sapien" to refer to something that is biologically human, rather than ethically human.
All currently known humans are homo sapiens, but that is not something inherent to the definition. It is incidental to the idea of human. In a similar manner, all hunters wear orange, but wearing orange is not something that is inherent to the act of being a hunter. Being a homo sapien is not a condition necessary to be a human, but is simply a property held by all known humans.
Moreover, everyone understands that abortion kills a developing human. Arguing over whether a zygote, embryo, or fetus is a "person" is pointless because the result is the same. The growing thing/person is killed and will never be born.
I would say that abortion kills a developing homo sapien. The growing homo sapien is killed, and will never develop further. However, I would say that the question of whether the homo sapien is indeed human is of key importance. If the homo sapien is not human, then murder is not possibile. I would not call the destruction of bacteria by my immune system murder, even though they are alive and that I am indeed killing them. Similarly, if the developing homo sapien is not human, then any killing of it cannot be murder. Note that I do not say that if it is human, then the killing is a murder. The condition of humanity is a necessary condition for murder, not a sufficient condition.
Personally, I think if any circumstance can legitimate gives you power to decide life and death, it's when you're growing that life inside you, but people need to be honest about what exactly is going on in an abortion and understand that normal rules for other situations may not apply.
This sounds rather similar to the Unconscious Violinist argument. Even if the developing homo sapien is human, its killing is not necessarily murder. I think that we are in agreement about this, if I have read your argument correctly.
Any Jew is a human, because one cannot be Jewish without also being human. An embryo is something separate and distinct from human. A human develops from an embryo, but an embryo is not a human.
As to a definition of "child", I would say that it is a developing "human". Though, that just diverts the question back to what is a "human". I would say that being a "human" is not a statement of genetics, or parentage, or potential, but one of intelligence. That which can think is "human" for all purpose of ethics. That which cannot think is not "human" for all purposes of ethics. If we were to find some intelligent species outside of homo sapien, then murdering such a creature would be just as unethical as murdering an adult homo sapien.
A person who has brain damage and no longer has any ability to think is no longer "human", and turning off the life support has no more ethical ramifications than burying a corpse. Something to be done with respect, but not something equivalent to murder. Embryos, being unable to think, fall under this same category. Abortions are not something to be taken lightly, nor performed without respect, but the flesh being killed is not human, and so there is no murder in the act.
The job of the military is to follow orders of the executive branch. The point of the military is to kill or intimidate foreigners and to protect national power.
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
Removing things from the public domain, including works upon which derivative works may have been made, does nothing "to promote the progress of science and useful arts" and is therefore prohibited.
On an unrelated not, I could see an argument being made that copyrights may neither be signed off to another person nor inherited in any manner. After all, the rights are secured only "to authors and inventors", not "to authors, inventors, and other related people".
I have noticed that one of the amazing things about politics (Using "amazing" as "It amazes me that it happens.", not "This is an awesome thing.".) is the skill by which politicians name things. Wordings are carefully chosen for the maximum emotional impact without regard to the truth. In this matter, I think that we need to look both for accuracy and emotional impact.
Therefore, I propose saying "habeus corpus being ignored" instead of "habeus corpus has been revoked". The Constitution is the the supreme law of the land, and any laws passed under it must be in accordance with the Constitution. Therefore, "being ignored" is more accurate than "has been revoked", since a law passed by Congress has no authority to override the Constitution. Yes, they ignore it on a frequent basis, but it is important to frame the issues in ways that benefit us.
In addition, "being ignored" gives a better emotional impact as compared to "has been revoked". "Being ignored" has the implication that the change is temporary, illicit, and to be worked against. "Has been revoked" has the implication that the change is permanent, legitimate, and something that may be a good change, none of which are implications that we wish to have.
I agree that citizens should yell and screech at politicians when they misbehave. However, in an ideal world, it should not be necessary to constantly baby-sit the politicians. Such a system has all of the disadvantages of a direct democracy (Citizens need to stay aware of every issue.) and all of the disadvantages of a republic (Politicians may not represent those who voted for them.) with none of the advantages of either (Citizens having a direct voice on issues for direct democracy, or politicians allowing citizens to devote more time to other issues for a republic.).
Mass, not gravity. If there is bound energy, it manifests as mass. A compressed spring is ever-so-slightly more massive than a relaxed spring. The main place where this is noticed is with very strong forces, such as the strong nuclear force.
I believe they get around it by saying that all disputes must be decided by arbitration, and not by a class action lawsuit. Therefore, it is not depriving someone of the court system, only of the most useful part of it.
I beg to differ. Experimental results have only been able to place the lower bound of Turtles Down at 7 or 8, depending on the model used.
I found the exact opposite problem in high school. There was the assumption that everything taught in the previous grade was completely forgotten over the summer, and so half of the classtime was devoted to review of what was taught the previous semester. If we could just move on instead of repeating things over and over, we could have learned so much more.
With regard to your specific example of trig identities, practically nobody keeps those memorized. In that case, the important thing is to know that they are there, and how to use them after you look up the identities
I would say that it always belongs to the world, but that for a limited time, we pay the artist for having made it. The form by which we pay them is the protection of a monopoly for that work. If we had an infallible method by which to determine the value of each new work, then we would be perfectly justified in paying the artist that sum and having everything be in the public domain, to use and expand upon as the public sees fit. Since we do not have such a method, we much rely on the public to assign worth to each work. We do this by guaranteeing the artist control over the work for a given time. After that time, control returns to the world, as the world has owned the piece from the beginning.
I'm curious. It seems like a voluntary DDoS is nothing more than the digital equivalent of a sit-in protest. In each, there is a point to be made beyond simple, malicious destruction. In each, the underlying infrastructure is left undamaged. In each, the method of protest is to do as normal customers do, but more so, whether by sitting in the dining area for extended periods of time, or by requesting the site continuously for extended periods of time. Do you have any opinion as to whether this analogy is valid?
So, anyone want to guess whether people will react with "That security system is horrible." or with "Hackers can do anything." ?
Not common, but I saw it a few times in elementary school. Mostly, the curriculum wants to start giving the basics of algebra without having to explain the concept of variables to students. Mostly, they just leave a blank spot to indicate that a number is missing from the equation. Sometimes they put an underscore or the parentheses to show where the blank spot is.
It's their phone, their applications.
If I buy the phone, I expect to own it. Even if it is on a rent-to-buy plan like the phone company subsidized contracts, I should have more rights to the phone than Apple does. If I have a phone that I have bought, and someone else has a program that he has made for it, I do not see any moral reason by which a third party, Apple, can restrict my access to my own phone.
The lack of lithium in the universe is one of the great unsolved mysteries in astronomy.
In solar fusion, it is rather difficult to form Li from H and He. The "normal" form of He is He-4. If H-1 is added to this, Li-5 is formed. However, Li-5 is not stable, and decays to He-5, which decays to He-4. Therefore, it is not possible to form stable Li using the most abundant isotopes of H and He.
Heavier elements are usually formed by combining multiple He-4 nuclei. This can give Be-8, C-12, O-16, and so on. These elements and isotopes show correspondingly high abundances in the universe as a whole.
In order to form any isotope of Li, the Li-5 step must be completely avoided. Instead of adding H-1 to He-4, either H-2 or H-3 must be added, forming stable Li-6 or Li-7. The H-2 and H-3 are present in much lower concentrations than H-1, and so we are much less likely for these to interact with He-4. There is some interaction, which is where the current Li comes from.
Not that the actual Video Professor teaching tool is a scam.
About two-thirds of the way down in the article:
Another scam: Video Professor. Users are offered in game currency if they sign up to receive a free learning CD from Video Professor. The user is told they pay nothing except a $10 shipping charge. But the fine print, on a different page from checkout, tells them they are really getting a whole set of CDs and will be billed $189.95 unless they return them. Most users never return them because they don't know about the extra charge. Woot. Again, sites like Offerpal and SuperRewards flow these offers through to game developers. See here for more on the Video Professor scam.
So, Video Professor is a scam, but it's a minor point in the article.
The signal does need to carry energy, but it does not need mass. A photon has energy and momentum, but is massless.