people's beliefs should be respected insofar as they don't infringe on other people's rights to have different ones
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
If someone believes something that is patently stupid, why is it deserving of respect?
Just because it's a religion?
Sorry, but I respect people based on how they act towards others, not because they subscribe to a particular belief system, and their being religious reduces the respect that I have for them, whichever sky monster they subscribe to.
The idea that religious beliefs should all be equally deserving of respect is moral relativism in a shiny new coat, and should be derided as such.
Plaistow Patricia for me - the dulcet tones of Ian Dury alert me whenever a member of management calls, while co-workers are introduced by the Harry J All-Stars classic 'The Liquidator'.
I believe (from the UK experience) that both indicators and mirrors are optional extras on German cars, as they never, ever indicate even when pulling out 3" from my front bumper:)
Lloyds Bank in the UK (>> $10 billion in revenue - hell, probably >> $10 billion in profits) went NT4 -> XP last year, and I can't see them touching Vista if Windows 7 appears before their next rollout, as they normally do a full hardware and software rollout in one process.
Just train the software to ignore signals that regularly enter the restroom, then!
Regular comfort breaks are a feature of both prostrate cancer and the lack of a Y chromosone, so these signals should be fairly easy to classify and filter:P
Interesting point about the early Mormons - A Study In Scarlet was my first encounter with Mormonism, and made me less than keen to encounter any live ones.
The third world wants the IP because they do not have the luxury of enough national income to afford to buy the useful drugs from the big pharmaceutical companies and use them to the benefit of their people.
Personally, I'd support that view so long as they did not then undermine the profits gained by pharmaceutical companies in the developed world - but that's not likely ever to happen, as there's always a middleman out for a buck.
The argument for the genericising of useful drugs is similar to the 'fair use' argument in copyright, and open to the same abuse.
No - it has a lot to do with markets, just not in the way that the idealistic GP thinks.
It has lots to do with, for instance, perversion of the markets by the protectionists of the developed world who subsidise their agrobusiness interests and thus artificially depress the market price for the very cash crops that would allow third world economies to sustain themselves.
It has a lot to do with the ultimate market Big Lie that is GATT - structured to allow parasitical 'service' companies from the developed nations profit from the loans given to developing nations by their friends in the World Bank and IMF.
It has a lot to do with Invisible Property laws and treaties that restrict the ability of developing countries to use knowledge for their own benefit without paying over the odds to some shyster patent troll or well padded pharmaceutical executive.
A free market system would benefit the developing world hugely - but there are too many vested interests in the developed world that would suffer in such a market, so it isn't likely to happen.
The only types of infections that could wipe us all out aren't likely to be treatable with the sort of drugs that big pharma is interested in patenting - the anti-obesity, anti-cancer, antidepressant and other sorts of anti-whatever-social-disorder-is-trendy drugs.
It's likely to be a viral infection of the influenza type, for which the technology to create an effective vaccine already exists, and for which no lengthy clinical trials are needed.
There will always be a market for such vaccines with or without patents, so your FUD is badly aimed in this case.
If we could duplicate food like we can duplicate digital information, imagine what the world would be like. "It would hurt farmers economically," would be a ridiculous reason to out outlaw food duplicators.
On the other hand, "It would hurt economically" would be an excellent reason to do so from the point of view of the donation-dependent politician.
Hell, in states with large agro-businesses, the original argument of hurting farmers would be enough to sway the legislators.
My position on copyright is simple - it should be fixed term and non-transferable, and if it doesn't make enough money for the creators in that form, they have overvalued their creation.
In that case, they have the option of thinking of their own ways to add value, or accepting the market valuation.
Since copyright is in essence a deliberate distortion of the free market to encourage useful works, certain categories of works should be excluded from copyright entirely, music being a prime example, as it cannot in any meaningful way be described as 'useful'.
Similarly, all works of fiction should be excluded - only factual writing adds to the sum of human knowledge.
Bands would still form, musicians would find a way to make some income from their work, but only what the market would bear.
ReaL musicians primarily want to make music - the fact that the music industry has made some performers rich is incidental to the much more important fact (to the music industry) that the shysters running the record companies have made much, much more.
'the chilling effect that would occur if agency employees believed their frank and honest opinions and analysis expressed as part of assessing California's waiver request were to be disclosed in a broad setting.'
Another view of this would be that the chilling effect, if real, could offset the carbon emissions caused by the actions of the EPA - I think the judge should take this into account and allow full, unredacted discovery.
That way, everybody wins - the car and truck makers don't have to spend money developing cleaner vehicles, and the general population benefits from the EPA chilling effect.
Perhaps this effect could be harnessed in the hotter months to augment air conditioning - strap one EPA employee to the side of your building, and play a recording of his 'frank and honest' opinions to invoke the chilling effect. To get more chilling, simply turn the volume up.
So then what MIND thought up the laws of nature? You can give that Mind any name you wish. Call it evolution maybe even. There is no way science can observe the existence or non-existence of this Mind. Evidently, this Mind doesn't want to be proven, but rather BELIEVED and trusted.
Another fallacy from the religious crowd
The idea of 'laws of nature' is merely shorthand for 'Nature behaves in a way that can be modelled using mathematics, and this modelling leads to a set of general principles that are analogous to laws in human societies'.
There are no laws of nature, at least in the sense of laws imposed on nature as human laws are imposed on society.
Thus the question of a 'mind' conceiving of those laws has no meaning, since the 'laws' in question are just a convenient, anthropomorphic way of viewing the model that science has given us.
There is no 'Mind', and it is therefore meaningless to speculate on what that 'Mind' might want.
You believe away if you want to, but since your entire belief is based on a logical fallacy, don't expect me to respect your primitive nonsense.
How do we KNOW that the world around us is "real" and not just an extended illusion, or dream, or computer simulation?
A better phrasing of the question would be 'How could we know...?'
If we could concieve of an experiment that would tell us which of the competing notions is true, then the question is worth asking.
Contrariwise, if there is no wat to test the competing notions, then the question is meaningless (at least until someone invents such a test - just because nobody has thought of the test does not mean that no test could possibly exist).
Currently, the question is meaningless, as all attempts to answer it have led to the inclusion of transcendental entities in their arguments, which is bad philosophy and even worse science.
Sorry, but as a Wittgensteinian, I subscribe to Proposition 7, and view the 'why' questions as perfect examples of items whereof we must be silent.
To an extent, the answers to the 'where' and 'what' questions can be answered empirically, but there comes a point (e.g. the Cosmological argument) where the question becomes impossible to answer, and must be abandoned if one is to resist positing transcendent beings.
Questions of moral duty can be accessed perfectly well from a utilitarian perspective, without involing similar transcendent entities.
I admit, I was being a little obtuse in dismissing the Pope so lightly, but that's down to my innate prejudice against religion, and my dislike of the whole organised religion scam that has affected civilisation since its inception.
One possible hitch with the whole 'terrorist' thing is that Islamists normally wear a full moustaches and beard set, thus covering the very lips that the software is trying to read.
I myself, though no Islamist, wear a full set of facial hair, since I can never be bothered shaving, and also move my lips very little when speaking due to my bad teeth.
Good luck reading my lips, Jacqui Smith!
P.S. When looking at Ms Smith, the phrase I am most likely to be uttering is: I wish she'd put that bloody cleavage away - I'm trying to eat my tea here!
Slashdot Mirror
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
If someone believes something that is patently stupid, why is it deserving of respect?
Just because it's a religion?
Sorry, but I respect people based on how they act towards others, not because they subscribe to a particular belief system, and their being religious reduces the respect that I have for them, whichever sky monster they subscribe to.
The idea that religious beliefs should all be equally deserving of respect is moral relativism in a shiny new coat, and should be derided as such.
And don't forget, if you pick up a desperate old one, you're guaranteed a good breakfast too!
I believe (from the UK experience) that both indicators and mirrors are optional extras on German cars, as they never, ever indicate even when pulling out 3" from my front bumper :)
Sorry, mate, but that's just sick.
17 crew members died, and another 39 were injured.
The explosion knocked a 40 ft hole in the ship, and your dismissal of it is disgusting.
That's right, in Newport, Gwent - and thus subject to the rulings of the English High Court.
If you want to set up a Scottish Patent Office (aye -a new way to catch the wee haggis...), good luck.
Kitchin Rolls Over - Patent Office Down Pan
Oh, for some mod points - even if you are an AC.
Lloyds Bank in the UK (>> $10 billion in revenue - hell, probably >> $10 billion in profits) went NT4 -> XP last year, and I can't see them touching Vista if Windows 7 appears before their next rollout, as they normally do a full hardware and software rollout in one process.
Regular comfort breaks are a feature of both prostrate cancer and the lack of a Y chromosone, so these signals should be fairly easy to classify and filter :P
I was about 6 when I read it, though :)
Personally, I'd support that view so long as they did not then undermine the profits gained by pharmaceutical companies in the developed world - but that's not likely ever to happen, as there's always a middleman out for a buck.
The argument for the genericising of useful drugs is similar to the 'fair use' argument in copyright, and open to the same abuse.
"You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else."
It has lots to do with, for instance, perversion of the markets by the protectionists of the developed world who subsidise their agrobusiness interests and thus artificially depress the market price for the very cash crops that would allow third world economies to sustain themselves.
It has a lot to do with the ultimate market Big Lie that is GATT - structured to allow parasitical 'service' companies from the developed nations profit from the loans given to developing nations by their friends in the World Bank and IMF.
It has a lot to do with Invisible Property laws and treaties that restrict the ability of developing countries to use knowledge for their own benefit without paying over the odds to some shyster patent troll or well padded pharmaceutical executive.
A free market system would benefit the developing world hugely - but there are too many vested interests in the developed world that would suffer in such a market, so it isn't likely to happen.
The only types of infections that could wipe us all out aren't likely to be treatable with the sort of drugs that big pharma is interested in patenting - the anti-obesity, anti-cancer, antidepressant and other sorts of anti-whatever-social-disorder-is-trendy drugs.
It's likely to be a viral infection of the influenza type, for which the technology to create an effective vaccine already exists, and for which no lengthy clinical trials are needed.
There will always be a market for such vaccines with or without patents, so your FUD is badly aimed in this case.
Damn - too lazy to preview again - "it would hurt economically" was what I intended :P
On the other hand, "It would hurt economically" would be an excellent reason to do so from the point of view of the donation-dependent politician.
Hell, in states with large agro-businesses, the original argument of hurting farmers would be enough to sway the legislators.
My position on copyright is simple - it should be fixed term and non-transferable, and if it doesn't make enough money for the creators in that form, they have overvalued their creation.
In that case, they have the option of thinking of their own ways to add value, or accepting the market valuation.
Since copyright is in essence a deliberate distortion of the free market to encourage useful works, certain categories of works should be excluded from copyright entirely, music being a prime example, as it cannot in any meaningful way be described as 'useful'.
Similarly, all works of fiction should be excluded - only factual writing adds to the sum of human knowledge.
Bands would still form, musicians would find a way to make some income from their work, but only what the market would bear.
ReaL musicians primarily want to make music - the fact that the music industry has made some performers rich is incidental to the much more important fact (to the music industry) that the shysters running the record companies have made much, much more.
Oh, never mind - pink ponies and black helicopters aren't a good mix early in the morning :P
Not Klingon, but Welsh.
Another view of this would be that the chilling effect, if real, could offset the carbon emissions caused by the actions of the EPA - I think the judge should take this into account and allow full, unredacted discovery.
That way, everybody wins - the car and truck makers don't have to spend money developing cleaner vehicles, and the general population benefits from the EPA chilling effect.
Perhaps this effect could be harnessed in the hotter months to augment air conditioning - strap one EPA employee to the side of your building, and play a recording of his 'frank and honest' opinions to invoke the chilling effect. To get more chilling, simply turn the volume up.
Another fallacy from the religious crowd
The idea of 'laws of nature' is merely shorthand for 'Nature behaves in a way that can be modelled using mathematics, and this modelling leads to a set of general principles that are analogous to laws in human societies'.
There are no laws of nature, at least in the sense of laws imposed on nature as human laws are imposed on society.
Thus the question of a 'mind' conceiving of those laws has no meaning, since the 'laws' in question are just a convenient, anthropomorphic way of viewing the model that science has given us.
There is no 'Mind', and it is therefore meaningless to speculate on what that 'Mind' might want.
You believe away if you want to, but since your entire belief is based on a logical fallacy, don't expect me to respect your primitive nonsense.
A better phrasing of the question would be 'How could we know...?'
If we could concieve of an experiment that would tell us which of the competing notions is true, then the question is worth asking.
Contrariwise, if there is no wat to test the competing notions, then the question is meaningless (at least until someone invents such a test - just because nobody has thought of the test does not mean that no test could possibly exist).
Currently, the question is meaningless, as all attempts to answer it have led to the inclusion of transcendental entities in their arguments, which is bad philosophy and even worse science.
To an extent, the answers to the 'where' and 'what' questions can be answered empirically, but there comes a point (e.g. the Cosmological argument) where the question becomes impossible to answer, and must be abandoned if one is to resist positing transcendent beings.
Questions of moral duty can be accessed perfectly well from a utilitarian perspective, without involing similar transcendent entities.
I admit, I was being a little obtuse in dismissing the Pope so lightly, but that's down to my innate prejudice against religion, and my dislike of the whole organised religion scam that has affected civilisation since its inception.
I myself, though no Islamist, wear a full set of facial hair, since I can never be bothered shaving, and also move my lips very little when speaking due to my bad teeth.
Good luck reading my lips, Jacqui Smith!
P.S. When looking at Ms Smith, the phrase I am most likely to be uttering is: I wish she'd put that bloody cleavage away - I'm trying to eat my tea here!
That's what Sierra did, according to the court decision.
Either the admin responsible is incredibly stupid, incredibly lazy or just hasn't thought through the security implications.