If I rephrased to replace the first instance of the word theory with "idea", "view", or "supposition" would you then still have a problem with my stated view?/I accept your argument that use of the specific word "theory" in the GP causes confusion between the scientific term "theory" and the colloquial term "theory" and adjust accordingly.
1) I haven't heard any of those ideas prior to your post here. 2) How is it bad to teach people what a significant number of people believe? How can you argue against something you don't understand yourself? 3) You're essential argument boils down to (from what I read) "non-scientific = WRONG, therefore should not be taught in any capacity"
My View: by hiding the fact that other theories exist you only harm the credibility of the leading theory once the individual finds out about the other views. (as a general rule, not just to be applied to evolutionary biology / intelligent design)/damnit I fed the troll.
Law can, and should in my mind, be considered a science because it is inherently logical.
OK, the actual law itself may not be, but the application of it is. You take a rule or set of rules and then apply it using "If X is true, then Y must happen" type of logic. The wishy washy stuff happens and the science breaks down when you have conflicting rules... which unfortunately happens a LOT.
I would posit that Philosophy would be another class that it would be appropriate in (beyond the narrow religious studies classes).
However I also don't see the harm in pointing out in the science class that "while evolution is the current leading scientific theory by a landslide, there are other non-scientific theories out there. If you want to learn about them take class X in the philosophy / theology course line."
Isn't one of the points of the movie that while scientists espouse neutrality, lack of bias, objectivity, etc. that they are not actually following it?
(Disclaimer --> haven't seen the movie or any trailers, the above was a genuine question for anyone who has actually seen the movie, and not an attempt to troll. Also the question should not imply that I agree with or disagree with the movie. It really is JUST a question.)
widely played is a bit of a stretch. For the "eternal" formats (vintage and Legacy) there ARE moderate to large playgroups that are sporadically placed around the country. If you don't happen to live near one of those, you basically cannot play it (at least beyond a casual friendly game level)...
not a lawyer, but as a law student I'll give it a go:
It seems to me that the second bolded portion "with knowledge..." requires what is known as specific knowledge. In this case what it means is not that you have to know you are accessing another persons wireless internet even though you are unauthorized, but you also have to know that it is illegal to do so. This would require actual knowledge of the law, and not constructive knowledge. Since actual knowledge is pretty damn hard to prove I would guess this portion will be mostly unenforceable./Oblig: blah blah blah not legal advice blah blah blah if you interpret a forum post as legal advice you deserve what you get blah blah blah but I'm still not responsible.
Actually Scientology is not a government recognised church. It is a corporation that sued the IRS, negotiated an undisclosed settlement agreement and as a result is now treated as a church for tx pruposes (who knows what else was in that agreement?)
The OP merely said that it was wrong, he did not say that it was illegal. Wrong is clearly a statement of whether something violates ones morals (in this context).
I would guess what they are actually thinking is American forces can track them using some form of Uber-1337 reverse GPS upload deal where they can see where the Taliban is moving based on the movements of their cellphones. IE they have a cool map with glowing red dots showing "this cell phone is moving along this ridge" or something similar.
This way they could move during those two hours and not be tracked... of course this doesn't make much sense either becuase they could always just turn their phones off and voila! no tracking...
I would favor a system that is more difficult to tweak, but would adamantly oppose a system that cannot be tweaked.
Think of it in software terms. If you released a product (even a completely absolutely refined product) that was incapable of being patched would you be comfortable? There needs to be SOME way of fixing problems that are unforseen.
Legislation in a lot of ways is like software. Release it early and its full of bugs and exploits, release it late and everyone complains that you are taking to long and that [X] can do it faster.
Copyright was simply the example I thought most people on/. would be familiar with. The main point of my post was corporate control is not a liberal or a conservative problem, its an institutional problem.
unfortunately, thats fairly accurate. The primary power of the presidency is the establishment and implementation of foreign policy. Something our current president has not quite excelled at. (To put it EXTREMELY nicely).
8 years? Corporations have been exhibiting control over the legislature for much more than the past 8 years... One only has to look at the copyright act extensions to see that.
Because I frequently visit websites (such as www.cvs.com) that expressly disallow Opera users to access the website for no apparent reason.
Leaving on "ID as IE" saves me hassle... plus I'm not a super hardcore must evangelize [X] browser person, Opera is the best I've found, so it is what I use. I could care less waht other people use.
As one of the many disguised Opera Users (currently identifying as IE 7), I accept your apology.
Seriously though I think the complaint here is alleging (whehter justly or unjustly) that the Firefox team knew of the bug in BOTH Opera and Firefox, spent a lot of time, then the day before releasing their fix (and telling the world about the exploit) told Opera "Oh, by the way, we've been working on this fix for a while, and it seems you have the same problem. Good luck fixing it by tomorrow when we tell everyone about it."
Patents are not now, nor have they ever been (In the US) good for the life of the inventor. They have always had a set patent term that expires after X years (formerly 17, now 20). The term is in NO WAY tied to the life span of the inventor.
While the patent system DOES have many problems, Patent terms are not one of them (currently). As it is patents last for 20 years from the Date of filing.* This is true weather the inventor dies immediatly after iventing or lives for another 60 years.
*Not EXACTLY correct, but close enough for engineering work.
How does one address the lack of ownership by minorities and women? It seems to me that it would not be possible to "force" minorities and women to buy media outlets, nor would it be possible to force people to sell to them...
well, ok, maybe you could force people to sell to them, but how are you going to compensate them for the price difference that they would have gotten from someone else? And wouldn't a forced sale implicate the takings clause?
I agree.
I used (note past tense) KnoppMyth for about 6 months. In the end it just (seemingly randomly) crapped out on me, and now I have an expensive paperweight sitting next to my TV. I suck at Linux, and quite frankly I don't have the time to learn it right now. I'd love to do the OS thing, and use all free (in every sense) software but it just isn't gonna happen until it "just works."
I'm considering buying a windows licence (XP) and one of the non-free software suites to have essentially TiVo. Either that or one of the pre-built, garunteed to work, MythTV computers where all I (as the end user) need to do is plug my cable into the back, and the output into my TV. unfortunately those run about $1000 -- I could just get TiVo for that...
The real question I have to that statement is: why on earth were you trying to convince the prosecutor of anything? It's the Judge / Jury that needs to be convinced, not the prosecutor...
Slashdot Mirror
If I rephrased to replace the first instance of the word theory with "idea", "view", or "supposition" would you then still have a problem with my stated view? /I accept your argument that use of the specific word "theory" in the GP causes confusion between the scientific term "theory" and the colloquial term "theory" and adjust accordingly.
1) I haven't heard any of those ideas prior to your post here.
/damnit I fed the troll.
2) How is it bad to teach people what a significant number of people believe? How can you argue against something you don't understand yourself?
3) You're essential argument boils down to (from what I read) "non-scientific = WRONG, therefore should not be taught in any capacity"
My View: by hiding the fact that other theories exist you only harm the credibility of the leading theory once the individual finds out about the other views. (as a general rule, not just to be applied to evolutionary biology / intelligent design)
Law can, and should in my mind, be considered a science because it is inherently logical.
OK, the actual law itself may not be, but the application of it is. You take a rule or set of rules and then apply it using "If X is true, then Y must happen" type of logic. The wishy washy stuff happens and the science breaks down when you have conflicting rules... which unfortunately happens a LOT.
I would posit that Philosophy would be another class that it would be appropriate in (beyond the narrow religious studies classes). However I also don't see the harm in pointing out in the science class that "while evolution is the current leading scientific theory by a landslide, there are other non-scientific theories out there. If you want to learn about them take class X in the philosophy / theology course line."
Isn't one of the points of the movie that while scientists espouse neutrality, lack of bias, objectivity, etc. that they are not actually following it?
(Disclaimer --> haven't seen the movie or any trailers, the above was a genuine question for anyone who has actually seen the movie, and not an attempt to troll. Also the question should not imply that I agree with or disagree with the movie. It really is JUST a question.)
widely played is a bit of a stretch. For the "eternal" formats (vintage and Legacy) there ARE moderate to large playgroups that are sporadically placed around the country. If you don't happen to live near one of those, you basically cannot play it (at least beyond a casual friendly game level)...
not a lawyer, but as a law student I'll give it a go:
/Oblig:
It seems to me that the second bolded portion "with knowledge..." requires what is known as specific knowledge. In this case what it means is not that you have to know you are accessing another persons wireless internet even though you are unauthorized, but you also have to know that it is illegal to do so. This would require actual knowledge of the law, and not constructive knowledge. Since actual knowledge is pretty damn hard to prove I would guess this portion will be mostly unenforceable.
blah blah blah not legal advice blah blah blah if you interpret a forum post as legal advice you deserve what you get blah blah blah but I'm still not responsible.
Actually Scientology is not a government recognised church. It is a corporation that sued the IRS, negotiated an undisclosed settlement agreement and as a result is now treated as a church for tx pruposes (who knows what else was in that agreement?)
likewise: Illegal != wrong.
The OP merely said that it was wrong, he did not say that it was illegal. Wrong is clearly a statement of whether something violates ones morals (in this context).
Just sayin...
wouldn't it be shorter to just list all the people who don't?
/oblig
Islam is evil. The more you know!
(sorry. I had to do it. Please forgive me.)
I would guess what they are actually thinking is American forces can track them using some form of Uber-1337 reverse GPS upload deal where they can see where the Taliban is moving based on the movements of their cellphones. IE they have a cool map with glowing red dots showing "this cell phone is moving along this ridge" or something similar.
This way they could move during those two hours and not be tracked... of course this doesn't make much sense either becuase they could always just turn their phones off and voila! no tracking...
What parental control software IS there for Debian?
one of the main reasons I haven't switched to Linux is the (at least percieved) lack of parental control software...
I would favor a system that is more difficult to tweak, but would adamantly oppose a system that cannot be tweaked.
Think of it in software terms. If you released a product (even a completely absolutely refined product) that was incapable of being patched would you be comfortable? There needs to be SOME way of fixing problems that are unforseen.
Legislation in a lot of ways is like software. Release it early and its full of bugs and exploits, release it late and everyone complains that you are taking to long and that [X] can do it faster.
Copyright was simply the example I thought most people on /. would be familiar with. The main point of my post was corporate control is not a liberal or a conservative problem, its an institutional problem.
unfortunately, thats fairly accurate. The primary power of the presidency is the establishment and implementation of foreign policy. Something our current president has not quite excelled at. (To put it EXTREMELY nicely).
8 years? Corporations have been exhibiting control over the legislature for much more than the past 8 years... One only has to look at the copyright act extensions to see that.
Because I frequently visit websites (such as www.cvs.com) that expressly disallow Opera users to access the website for no apparent reason. Leaving on "ID as IE" saves me hassle... plus I'm not a super hardcore must evangelize [X] browser person, Opera is the best I've found, so it is what I use. I could care less waht other people use.
As one of the many disguised Opera Users (currently identifying as IE 7), I accept your apology.
Seriously though I think the complaint here is alleging (whehter justly or unjustly) that the Firefox team knew of the bug in BOTH Opera and Firefox, spent a lot of time, then the day before releasing their fix (and telling the world about the exploit) told Opera "Oh, by the way, we've been working on this fix for a while, and it seems you have the same problem. Good luck fixing it by tomorrow when we tell everyone about it."
Patents are not now, nor have they ever been (In the US) good for the life of the inventor. They have always had a set patent term that expires after X years (formerly 17, now 20). The term is in NO WAY tied to the life span of the inventor.
While the patent system DOES have many problems, Patent terms are not one of them (currently). As it is patents last for 20 years from the Date of filing.* This is true weather the inventor dies immediatly after iventing or lives for another 60 years.
*Not EXACTLY correct, but close enough for engineering work.
You have to remember that a proposed bill means nothing. Its final form may be very different.
Starting from an extreme position knowing that you will bargain it down to a more reasonable position is a perfectly legitimate tactic.
Out of curiosity...
How does one address the lack of ownership by minorities and women? It seems to me that it would not be possible to "force" minorities and women to buy media outlets, nor would it be possible to force people to sell to them...
well, ok, maybe you could force people to sell to them, but how are you going to compensate them for the price difference that they would have gotten from someone else? And wouldn't a forced sale implicate the takings clause?
I agree. I used (note past tense) KnoppMyth for about 6 months. In the end it just (seemingly randomly) crapped out on me, and now I have an expensive paperweight sitting next to my TV. I suck at Linux, and quite frankly I don't have the time to learn it right now. I'd love to do the OS thing, and use all free (in every sense) software but it just isn't gonna happen until it "just works." I'm considering buying a windows licence (XP) and one of the non-free software suites to have essentially TiVo. Either that or one of the pre-built, garunteed to work, MythTV computers where all I (as the end user) need to do is plug my cable into the back, and the output into my TV. unfortunately those run about $1000 -- I could just get TiVo for that...
The real question I have to that statement is: why on earth were you trying to convince the prosecutor of anything? It's the Judge / Jury that needs to be convinced, not the prosecutor...