How can the constitution really say anything about a technology that didn't exist at the time.
Oh my god, you couldn't be more wrong.
The Constitution is not about technology it is about principles. As such, it is really just a matter of applying those principles to new technologies. You can think of the principles embedded in the constitution as a functional contract. As long as a law adheres to the principles, it is valid, even if it deals with new technologies.
Just as the right to bear arms doesn't mean you can carry around rocket launchers and nuclear weapons, there are things in the constitution that no longer can be taken to mean exactly what they say
Well, yes and no. There are things in the Constitution that may not appear to say what they mean due to the drift in language. Fortunately, we have a bunch of writings on what the intent was.
And there are people who would disagree with you about rocket launchers, machine guns, other "military" hardware and yes, probably even nuclear weapons. You cannot assert that these are not covered by the right to bear arms as any sort of "proof" about your general assertion.
First, we have not even been able to eliminate the false positives from facial recognition ! How in the world do you propose to eliminate false positives from a pattern set that is orders of magnitude less understood than optics? I mean really, patterns of consciousness vs. patterns of light reflection seems like quite a jump.
Second:
We just need to make sure enough "good people" are descion makers in the new paradigm.
The fact that you think this way scares me. Just re-read your own sentence a few times. Start thinking about Power and what types of people gravitate to power. Re-read your sentence again. Take a look at the world today. Re-read your sentence. How do you propose that we "make sure" enough "good people" are the decision makers? We seem to have done a pretty piss poor job of it even in the last 100 years, even in the past 20.
Really, isn't that the ultimate crux of the world today? It will all work out if enough good people are decision makers, in government, industry and as individual citizens. Yet it turns out that those decision makers with the most power routinely put their own personal interests ahead of the good of the people they profess to serve.
We are all human.
Yes. But humanity has a wide range of available states of consciousness. Some of them clearly need de-populating. How do yo propose we screen these individuals from becoming decision makers? I know - lets use brain scanning techniques!
I think that they probably waived fair use because they, themselves don't want to strengthen fair use case laws.
Perhaps they have some content themselves that they don't want other people sharing [full, entire] version of their stuff through time shifting mechanisms.
I mean, if it's fair use that a cable network can time shift stuff for you then logically other companies and individuals can also get into that game.
And let me tell you, my friends, that way least to anarchy! Or at least a lot less profit for both cable operators as well as content holding companies.
(* 'we geeks prefer customisation', not 'us geeks'. You wouldn't say 'us prefer', would you? Addition of the extra qualifier doesn't alter the noun case. And yes, I am a member of the Campaign for Real Pedantry. CaRP, for short.)
Well, then, OT to you! To further your study of pedantry, I proffer the following:
Do you belive that a colloquialism must be grammatically correct? I would say that part of the entire point of colloquial language is that is need not be so.
The reason to use "us geeks..." instead of "we geeks..." is precicely because the usage is colloquial in origin, and modifiying the phrase to "we geeks" promotes grammatical rules at the expense of ignoring that history.
Now, there are many instances where more colloquial language is not appropriate, but I don't think slashtod counts as one. There are also many instances where colloquial language can be used to bind a group together.
In my imagination the phrase "us foo..." originated as a anti-intellectual linguistic marker to separate the "we" of the working class from the "they" of the upper classes through deliberate misuse of the language.
Not just an asshat, a coward. The prick should have done it himself, but I guess he didn't want the blood on his hands directly
Well, it was an illegal act, against our own military laws as well as the Geneva Convention. I think that fact, plus being willing to threaten your own men with a field court martial to accomplish the illegal acts probably puts this guy well past "coward" and "asshat".
It's easy to say what he should have done, but I don't think a.45 at the cranium helps one think straight in the moment.
Well, I don't even think it's that easy to say what the PFC holding the SAW or whatever should have done. Murdering innocent people vs. getting your own head blown off vs. fragging the patrol officer does not seem even an easy armchair choice to me.
I don't know about most soldiers, but the ones I have talked to don't generally game scenarios like these seriously even in their heads. They assume that officers are in general giving legal orders and it would generally come as a shock to receive an illegal order like this. That alone generally short circuits a decision tree.
I also agree that a.45 to the head rarely helps critical thinking and decision making skills, especially if it is being done to force a particular decision.
The simplest solution, killing the refugees and moving on is the least fraught with immediate issues yet would probably leave you the most haunted for the rest of your life.
Refusing might just end your life right there so that's not very optimal.
Killing the officer who ordered the act, while possibly the most honorable, could have some tremendous personal consequences both immediately from the rest of the squad as well as later, back at your general courtmartial.
A US veteran recalls his commander telling him to machine-gun a group of about 50 refugees. "I said, 'we can't kill all these people,' and he pulled out his handgun, a.45, and pointed it at my head, he said, 'Kill 'em, you're directly disobeying a direct order in combat'."
As a hypothetical, can you kill you CO if he immanently threatens your life to carry out an illegal order? Pointing a.45 at my head to force me to kill unarmed refugees just might motivate me enough to recall that my higher duty is not to the asshat holding it.
Which video game is it that teaches suicide bombers or their handlers such anti-social activities?
Oh, well, since you so snarkily asked.
It seems that the "video game" of real life has taught them.
You can say what you want about the motives of outside powers, but to a person on the ground, one group of forigners killing them and imposing an outside will by force seems quite similar to another group killing them and imposing an outside will by force.
It seems that if enough people shoot at you, kill your relatives, children and friends you might not be so happy about it.
Oh right, users never read the messages, just like/.'ers never rtfa.
It's not that MS won't render ODF properly, but a document created in docx may not have analogous functionality if saved in odf. That is, they are not feature for feature inter-compliant standards.
No, he is saying that Scientology is actually a Mafia. Loosely.
Their policy is still that any action is sanctioned if committed against anyone on their enemies list. And they *do* have one. It's pretty long, and there is a long list of things you can legally do that will put you there. They have killed, kidnapped, drugged, continue to use the courts to harass.
What is quite unfortunate is that they really are on to something with their "training techniques". If you are in to reprogramming the human biocomputer, checking out their working procedures from that perspective is highly enlightening. For example, their technique of going back, over and over, through your past, using amphetamines to keep the subject going, switching out the processors, etc. It is all a very well done procedure.
It's ironic that techniques developed for freeing the mind became fused with fully formed an authoritarian framework to invade the newly free headspace.
If Google is calculating flu statistics based on searches, it should be possible to create a large spike in the flu trend calculations with a relatively small botnet over a relatively short period of time, say a week. Especially if one were careful enough to follow a real outbreak pattern with the searches.
I don't personally know which stocks to buy beforehand to make the most profit but I'm pretty sure with the right options strategy one could make a killing.
Even if no more flu cases are reported by the CDC, the sheer number of people looking at Google's data as an accurate if not official version of what is actually happening.
You think that race riots got the civil rights laws passed? I think the most common reaction at the time was that it was time to repeal the 13th amendment.
No, I think that the race riots helped get them enforced properly. I think the race riots underscored the importance of Dr. King's message.
Incidentally, the first big race riot of that era occurred in 1965 -- about a year after LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act.
Incidentally, I don't particularly care. If you think nothing had to change in the country besides getting a law passed you are ignorant. If you don't see that the threat of further destabilization of the urban centers meant that the US government had to get serious about (some forms of) equality maybe you should look harder.
The Civil Rights Act could have been window dressing. If all that were happening was a small group of dedicated people like Dr. King were being arrested for civil disobedience it very well might have.
I'm not even going to attempt to deal with your ignorant characterization of Malcom X.
Are you attempting to assert that Malcom X delivered a message of non-violent civil disobedience?
I'm not even going to attempt to deal with your ignorant characterization of what I said. Much less your misunderstanding of what shapes history.
Civil disobedience is a tried and true way to oppose unfair laws. The fact that non-whites no longer have to go to the back of the bus is a testimony to that.
Civil disobedience has never worked on it's own, given the def'n used by Ghandi, MLK, etc.
MLK had a backdrop of Malcom X, riots in major population centers, etc. All of it certainly not oriented toward peaceful civil disobedience.
Read up on Ghandi, if you would. His civil disobedience held back the "terrorist" threat of the native population and there were quite a few armed conflicts. You can see sometimes where he was explicitly tying his "peaceful" message with the threat of "other people" (who he had no control over *cough* ) would take action if his demands were not met.
In both of these cases that are generally cited as shining examples of civil disobedience, real change would not have happened without the corresponding actions of people that fell wholly outside of the bounds of that framework. It seems civil disobedience needs corresponding front line individuals willing to do more.
This is why civil disobedience will not work for copyright reform. There is no corresponding pressure outside the framework. It is generally considered out of bounds to blow up the RIAA's office or kill their executives. All civil disobedience will get you is a rather large lawyer bill and fines.
But note that it isn't civil disobedience unless you're willing to go to jail. Is anybody out there willing to go to jail for their "right" to download a copy of Terminator Salvation? No? Didn't think so.
Quite right, and that is going to be a Problem. It turns out that *most* of our Freedoms are not some big thing that anybody is willing to go to jail for. Copyright reform is one of them. Habeus Corpus! appears to be another. We will get to see in the coming decades where the continued erosion of our rights leads us.
Any evidence that he isn't just like one of those lottery winners?
The losers don't get much press. Once in a while someone wins big and everyone wants to know how that person did it.
Even if there's a good reason why that person is "winning", often that person might not even be able to tell you how to replicate the success (he certainly can tell you lots of stuff, but that's not the same thing:) ). Apparently there's a finance guy who sells when his back hurts - and it works pretty well. His mind probably gathers various info from all sorts of sources processes it, when it's bad he gets more stressed and he gets back pain.
Well, his strategy argues against it.
Using the lottery winner analogy, it's like a guy who buys a subset of lottery tickets at a fraction of face value, but is mathematically guaranteed that his subset will het at some point. He then invests the rest of his money into interest bearing stable accounts like T Bills to finance buying these lottery tickets. Sooner or later, he will win the lottery.
In this case, his "subset" of financial bets was that there would be a big market correction downward, at some point, and just like the lottery, he couldn't really predict when, but sooner or later it was bound to happen.
Oh, right. They spent all that time and effort up to and including actually making an offer without any "deeper examination". They had all the time necessary to examine the fit and they chose to make an offer.
Oh, you mean "further consideration" after Sun rejected their offer?
In this "futher consideration" they weren't interested anything other than coming up reasons why their failed offer didn't make sense, in hindsight, after being refused. It only means they are tyring to save face. Or sour grapes.
Citing regulatory scrutiny as the driving factor behind not persuing Sun seems a bit sketchy, IMO.
The whole "the mind is a computer" thing is overrated, because most people will get an pretty inaccurate view of what the mind actually is. It's like no computer most people ever dreamed of.
1) Hardware layer modifies itself 2) Hardware layer uses multi-path (chemical, electrical, etc.) communication 3) Firmware is user modifiable (though this requires ring 0 permissions) 4) Software is self modifying code 5) Software consists of numerous autonomous agents in competing ontological hierarchies, running in parallel
I haven't even got to "Mind" yet. Maybe filling out the 20 or so layers in between these 5 and then adding the rest would do it.
Perhaps consciousness is just emergent behaviour.
Oh, I agree that we currently know of no mechanism whereby the quantum level affects the mind. But if you categorically deny the possibility I'd ask you to turn in your science cred. Seeing as we truly have no firm grasp on "mind".
I think that one can just leave gender out of the equation.
Everyone feels empowered, sometimes. Most often very rarely.
Some people act mostly from that space. Everyone has their issues, however, or they wouldn't be here.
Yet a person who is rarely empowered generally acts from a base of fear. That never turns out well for others (or themselves, actually), sometimes immediately, sometimes in the long run, because much more of the feedback cycle is run through a negative filter.
Everyone acts from fear sometimes, yet an empowered person takes responsibility for the act and also acts to deal with the root of the fear. Which is also why they have more times that they are not as fearful and can just act.
Two giant distributors with DRMless tracks, bidding on essentially free money for all parties involved. After all, that is exactly what digital media is. Not production of said media, but when you have vaults of it, baby, it's pretty close to printing cash.
Oh I guess there is a bit of server cost and bandwidth costs, but I expect that Allofmp3.com had it right after all...
However, I was not really talking to the gp comment. I was replying to yours.
You seem to be saying that your comment is only valid in context of the GP post. I personally don't see it that way. The logical gymnastics necessary for you to make your argument is the result of your framework.
Instead of trying to equate organ harvesting with digitizing books, I would not equate copyright with human rights. In fact, I would not say that copyright was a civil right at all. In that sense, the whole of the GP's comment is basically voided, as the "greater good" of digitally scanning these books is not trampling on anyone's human rights.
My personal take is that in general there is no excuse to violate human rights, and that any action which does so as a means to a "greater" end is doomed to failure at the higher level it is aiming (and in fact if it is *not* aiming at that higher level is it certainly not a "greater good"!).
Reading your post a few times and your reply allows me a different take on your intent than I had on first reply. Instead of using your analogy as a direct push against google's actions I now see that you probably intended it as a mirror for the GP's opinion about rights. In that sense, your brutal suggestion does an admirable job of showing the consequences of that kind of misguided notion.
You position would be admirable, except that's not what is going to happen with this law.
The skepticism heaped on evolution is certainly to be mostly of the non-scientific kind, and won't give anyone an inkling of how to actually critically assess science.
Sure you can say that eventually real science will prevail, but that won't help all the people you subjected to these deranged thought processes in school while growing up.
People who utilize the opportunity to bring in unscientific theories into a science class would find these theories subjected to the exact same skepticism that they would be teaching these kids to apply to evolution so I don't see the problem.
And I have a bridge I'd like you to consider buying.
Yes, fundamentally you are correct. People should be skeptical of, hmm, well everything. However you are being naive to believe that this is an attempt to teach critical thinking skills. It is exactly the opposite.
I won't mince words here... I frankly think it's quite idiotic to believe that this law is anything more than a new set of code words to allow the teaching of creationism in science class. No, not teaching critical thinking skills, which you seem to think is the aim.
And again, damn it, I neverever stated that I discouraged people from being skeptical of science. As I stated tired time and again, I believe that the admission that we don't have the answers is fundamental to science.
I would be all for teaching the history of science progress in science classes that highlighted how old models were overturned. I would be all for teaching how to critically assess theories and claims to see if they are valid, or even scientific. Do you actually believe that will be the outcome of this bill?
Claiming that any skepticism is good is simply unsupported by the evidence, so I must believe that you are entirely unaware of the creationist agenda that has played out across the US.
Your entire rant, the entire set of posts, attacks me for a position I never held. I have even stated this to you more than once, giving the proof by quoting my earlier posts. Yet you never seem to attack the points that I actually made. Unless you have anything to contribute beyond attacking your own shadows I don't see us having anything more to discuss.
You must be one of those people who expect everything to be just so.
No room for ambiguities, no room for case by case approaches. A Law must apply to ALL CASES or the approach is not valid. Bleah. Go ahead think that way, but I am certain that you cannot actually live that way. So much for your consistency.
If you cannot see the vast chasm that separates your proposed set of actions from Google's I wonder how you manage to get through the day.
Slashdot Mirror
How can the constitution really say anything about a technology that didn't exist at the time.
Oh my god, you couldn't be more wrong.
The Constitution is not about technology it is about principles. As such, it is really just a matter of applying those principles to new technologies. You can think of the principles embedded in the constitution as a functional contract. As long as a law adheres to the principles, it is valid, even if it deals with new technologies.
Just as the right to bear arms doesn't mean you can carry around rocket launchers and nuclear weapons, there are things in the constitution that no longer can be taken to mean exactly what they say
Well, yes and no. There are things in the Constitution that may not appear to say what they mean due to the drift in language. Fortunately, we have a bunch of writings on what the intent was.
And there are people who would disagree with you about rocket launchers, machine guns, other "military" hardware and yes, probably even nuclear weapons. You cannot assert that these are not covered by the right to bear arms as any sort of "proof" about your general assertion.
Regards.
First, we have not even been able to eliminate the false positives from facial recognition ! How in the world do you propose to eliminate false positives from a pattern set that is orders of magnitude less understood than optics? I mean really, patterns of consciousness vs. patterns of light reflection seems like quite a jump.
Second:
We just need to make sure enough "good people" are descion makers in the new paradigm.
The fact that you think this way scares me. Just re-read your own sentence a few times. Start thinking about Power and what types of people gravitate to power. Re-read your sentence again. Take a look at the world today. Re-read your sentence. How do you propose that we "make sure" enough "good people" are the decision makers? We seem to have done a pretty piss poor job of it even in the last 100 years, even in the past 20.
Really, isn't that the ultimate crux of the world today? It will all work out if enough good people are decision makers, in government, industry and as individual citizens. Yet it turns out that those decision makers with the most power routinely put their own personal interests ahead of the good of the people they profess to serve.
We are all human.
Yes. But humanity has a wide range of available states of consciousness. Some of them clearly need de-populating. How do yo propose we screen these individuals from becoming decision makers? I know - lets use brain scanning techniques!
oh, wait...
I think that they probably waived fair use because they, themselves don't want to strengthen fair use case laws.
Perhaps they have some content themselves that they don't want other people sharing [full, entire] version of their stuff through time shifting mechanisms.
I mean, if it's fair use that a cable network can time shift stuff for you then logically other companies and individuals can also get into that game.
And let me tell you, my friends, that way least to anarchy! Or at least a lot less profit for both cable operators as well as content holding companies.
Im sad that you've switched from analogies to just making blatant false dichotomies.
(* 'we geeks prefer customisation', not 'us geeks'. You wouldn't say 'us prefer', would you? Addition of the extra qualifier doesn't alter the noun case. And yes, I am a member of the Campaign for Real Pedantry. CaRP, for short.)
Well, then, OT to you! To further your study of pedantry, I proffer the following:
Do you belive that a colloquialism must be grammatically correct? I would say that part of the entire point of colloquial language is that is need not be so.
The reason to use "us geeks ..." instead of "we geeks ..." is precicely because the usage is colloquial in origin, and modifiying the phrase to "we geeks" promotes grammatical rules at the expense of ignoring that history.
Now, there are many instances where more colloquial language is not appropriate, but I don't think slashtod counts as one. There are also many instances where colloquial language can be used to bind a group together.
In my imagination the phrase "us foo ..." originated as a anti-intellectual linguistic marker to separate the "we" of the working class from the "they" of the upper classes through deliberate misuse of the language.
Cheers.
Not just an asshat, a coward. The prick should have done it himself, but I guess he didn't want the blood on his hands directly
Well, it was an illegal act, against our own military laws as well as the Geneva Convention. I think that fact, plus being willing to threaten your own men with a field court martial to accomplish the illegal acts probably puts this guy well past "coward" and "asshat".
It's easy to say what he should have done, but I don't think a .45 at the cranium helps one think straight in the moment.
Well, I don't even think it's that easy to say what the PFC holding the SAW or whatever should have done. Murdering innocent people vs. getting your own head blown off vs. fragging the patrol officer does not seem even an easy armchair choice to me.
I don't know about most soldiers, but the ones I have talked to don't generally game scenarios like these seriously even in their heads. They assume that officers are in general giving legal orders and it would generally come as a shock to receive an illegal order like this. That alone generally short circuits a decision tree.
I also agree that a .45 to the head rarely helps critical thinking and decision making skills, especially if it is being done to force a particular decision.
The simplest solution, killing the refugees and moving on is the least fraught with immediate issues yet would probably leave you the most haunted for the rest of your life.
Refusing might just end your life right there so that's not very optimal.
Killing the officer who ordered the act, while possibly the most honorable, could have some tremendous personal consequences both immediately from the rest of the squad as well as later, back at your general courtmartial.
Regards.
A US veteran recalls his commander telling him to machine-gun a group of about 50 refugees. "I said, 'we can't kill all these people,' and he pulled out his handgun, a .45, and pointed it at my head, he said, 'Kill 'em, you're directly disobeying a direct order in combat'."
As a hypothetical, can you kill you CO if he immanently threatens your life to carry out an illegal order? Pointing a .45 at my head to force me to kill unarmed refugees just might motivate me enough to recall that my higher duty is not to the asshat holding it.
Which video game is it that teaches suicide bombers or their handlers such anti-social activities?
Oh, well, since you so snarkily asked.
It seems that the "video game" of real life has taught them.
You can say what you want about the motives of outside powers, but to a person on the ground, one group of forigners killing them and imposing an outside will by force seems quite similar to another group killing them and imposing an outside will by force.
It seems that if enough people shoot at you, kill your relatives, children and friends you might not be so happy about it.
Regards.
Did you actually, um, read the error message?
Oh right, users never read the messages, just like /.'ers never rtfa.
It's not that MS won't render ODF properly, but a document created in docx may not have analogous functionality if saved in odf. That is, they are not feature for feature inter-compliant standards.
Imagine that.
Regards.
No, he is saying that Scientology is actually a Mafia. Loosely.
Their policy is still that any action is sanctioned if committed against anyone on their enemies list. And they *do* have one. It's pretty long, and there is a long list of things you can legally do that will put you there. They have killed, kidnapped, drugged, continue to use the courts to harass.
What is quite unfortunate is that they really are on to something with their "training techniques". If you are in to reprogramming the human biocomputer, checking out their working procedures from that perspective is highly enlightening. For example, their technique of going back, over and over, through your past, using amphetamines to keep the subject going, switching out the processors, etc. It is all a very well done procedure.
It's ironic that techniques developed for freeing the mind became fused with fully formed an authoritarian framework to invade the newly free headspace.
If Google is calculating flu statistics based on searches, it should be possible to create a large spike in the flu trend calculations with a relatively small botnet over a relatively short period of time, say a week. Especially if one were careful enough to follow a real outbreak pattern with the searches.
I don't personally know which stocks to buy beforehand to make the most profit but I'm pretty sure with the right options strategy one could make a killing.
Even if no more flu cases are reported by the CDC, the sheer number of people looking at Google's data as an accurate if not official version of what is actually happening.
You think that race riots got the civil rights laws passed? I think the most common reaction at the time was that it was time to repeal the 13th amendment.
No, I think that the race riots helped get them enforced properly. I think the race riots underscored the importance of Dr. King's message.
Incidentally, the first big race riot of that era occurred in 1965 -- about a year after LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act.
Incidentally, I don't particularly care. If you think nothing had to change in the country besides getting a law passed you are ignorant. If you don't see that the threat of further destabilization of the urban centers meant that the US government had to get serious about (some forms of) equality maybe you should look harder.
The Civil Rights Act could have been window dressing. If all that were happening was a small group of dedicated people like Dr. King were being arrested for civil disobedience it very well might have.
I'm not even going to attempt to deal with your ignorant characterization of Malcom X.
Are you attempting to assert that Malcom X delivered a message of non-violent civil disobedience?
I'm not even going to attempt to deal with your ignorant characterization of what I said. Much less your misunderstanding of what shapes history.
Civil disobedience is a tried and true way to oppose unfair laws. The fact that non-whites no longer have to go to the back of the bus is a testimony to that.
Civil disobedience has never worked on it's own, given the def'n used by Ghandi, MLK, etc.
MLK had a backdrop of Malcom X, riots in major population centers, etc. All of it certainly not oriented toward peaceful civil disobedience.
Read up on Ghandi, if you would. His civil disobedience held back the "terrorist" threat of the native population and there were quite a few armed conflicts. You can see sometimes where he was explicitly tying his "peaceful" message with the threat of "other people" (who he had no control over *cough* ) would take action if his demands were not met.
In both of these cases that are generally cited as shining examples of civil disobedience, real change would not have happened without the corresponding actions of people that fell wholly outside of the bounds of that framework. It seems civil disobedience needs corresponding front line individuals willing to do more.
This is why civil disobedience will not work for copyright reform. There is no corresponding pressure outside the framework. It is generally considered out of bounds to blow up the RIAA's office or kill their executives. All civil disobedience will get you is a rather large lawyer bill and fines.
But note that it isn't civil disobedience unless you're willing to go to jail. Is anybody out there willing to go to jail for their "right" to download a copy of Terminator Salvation? No? Didn't think so.
Quite right, and that is going to be a Problem. It turns out that *most* of our Freedoms are not some big thing that anybody is willing to go to jail for. Copyright reform is one of them. Habeus Corpus! appears to be another. We will get to see in the coming decades where the continued erosion of our rights leads us.
Any evidence that he isn't just like one of those lottery winners?
The losers don't get much press. Once in a while someone wins big and everyone wants to know how that person did it.
Even if there's a good reason why that person is "winning", often that person might not even be able to tell you how to replicate the success (he certainly can tell you lots of stuff, but that's not the same thing :) ). Apparently there's a finance guy who sells when his back hurts - and it works pretty well. His mind probably gathers various info from all sorts of sources processes it, when it's bad he gets more stressed and he gets back pain.
Well, his strategy argues against it.
Using the lottery winner analogy, it's like a guy who buys a subset of lottery tickets at a fraction of face value, but is mathematically guaranteed that his subset will het at some point. He then invests the rest of his money into interest bearing stable accounts like T Bills to finance buying these lottery tickets. Sooner or later, he will win the lottery.
In this case, his "subset" of financial bets was that there would be a big market correction downward, at some point, and just like the lottery, he couldn't really predict when, but sooner or later it was bound to happen.
Regards.
Oh, right. They spent all that time and effort up to and including actually making an offer without any "deeper examination". They had all the time necessary to examine the fit and they chose to make an offer.
Oh, you mean "further consideration" after Sun rejected their offer?
In this "futher consideration" they weren't interested anything other than coming up reasons why their failed offer didn't make sense, in hindsight, after being refused. It only means they are tyring to save face. Or sour grapes.
Citing regulatory scrutiny as the driving factor behind not persuing Sun seems a bit sketchy, IMO.
So, I am interested in hearing what the fundamental critical problems associated with government helping it's least able citizens are.
Thanks.
Because I searched for that on google. And all the top links on every search I made were about how government was essential to charity operations.
The other data I found on various Libertarian sites basically said - "The programs aren't working". I did not glean any fundamental critical issues.
I really had no opinion on this before, in itself. So, prove your bold assertion with at least a couple of links?
You are quite right.
We should have never bailed out the financial companies that created this entire mess.
The whole "the mind is a computer" thing is overrated, because most people will get an pretty inaccurate view of what the mind actually is. It's like no computer most people ever dreamed of.
1) Hardware layer modifies itself
2) Hardware layer uses multi-path (chemical, electrical, etc.) communication
3) Firmware is user modifiable (though this requires ring 0 permissions)
4) Software is self modifying code
5) Software consists of numerous autonomous agents in competing ontological hierarchies, running in parallel
I haven't even got to "Mind" yet. Maybe filling out the 20 or so layers in between these 5 and then adding the rest would do it.
Perhaps consciousness is just emergent behaviour.
Oh, I agree that we currently know of no mechanism whereby the quantum level affects the mind. But if you categorically deny the possibility I'd ask you to turn in your science cred. Seeing as we truly have no firm grasp on "mind".
Regards.
I think that one can just leave gender out of the equation.
Everyone feels empowered, sometimes. Most often very rarely.
Some people act mostly from that space. Everyone has their issues, however, or they wouldn't be here.
Yet a person who is rarely empowered generally acts from a base of fear. That never turns out well for others (or themselves, actually), sometimes immediately, sometimes in the long run, because much more of the feedback cycle is run through a negative filter.
Everyone acts from fear sometimes, yet an empowered person takes responsibility for the act and also acts to deal with the root of the fear. Which is also why they have more times that they are not as fearful and can just act.
Regards.
A pricewar!
Two giant distributors with DRMless tracks, bidding on essentially free money for all parties involved. After all, that is exactly what digital media is. Not production of said media, but when you have vaults of it, baby, it's pretty close to printing cash.
Oh I guess there is a bit of server cost and bandwidth costs, but I expect that Allofmp3.com had it right after all...
Cheers!
except you are incorrect he was convicted
you should actually read what double jeopardy is before asserting that
perhaps i should use caps and punctuation
no
Well, yes. I do not agree with that sentiment.
However, I was not really talking to the gp comment. I was replying to yours.
You seem to be saying that your comment is only valid in context of the GP post. I personally don't see it that way. The logical gymnastics necessary for you to make your argument is the result of your framework.
Instead of trying to equate organ harvesting with digitizing books, I would not equate copyright with human rights. In fact, I would not say that copyright was a civil right at all. In that sense, the whole of the GP's comment is basically voided, as the "greater good" of digitally scanning these books is not trampling on anyone's human rights.
My personal take is that in general there is no excuse to violate human rights, and that any action which does so as a means to a "greater" end is doomed to failure at the higher level it is aiming (and in fact if it is *not* aiming at that higher level is it certainly not a "greater good"!).
Reading your post a few times and your reply allows me a different take on your intent than I had on first reply. Instead of using your analogy as a direct push against google's actions I now see that you probably intended it as a mirror for the GP's opinion about rights. In that sense, your brutal suggestion does an admirable job of showing the consequences of that kind of misguided notion.
Regards.
You position would be admirable, except that's not what is going to happen with this law.
The skepticism heaped on evolution is certainly to be mostly of the non-scientific kind, and won't give anyone an inkling of how to actually critically assess science.
Sure you can say that eventually real science will prevail, but that won't help all the people you subjected to these deranged thought processes in school while growing up.
People who utilize the opportunity to bring in unscientific theories into a science class would find these theories subjected to the exact same skepticism that they would be teaching these kids to apply to evolution so I don't see the problem.
And I have a bridge I'd like you to consider buying.
Yes, fundamentally you are correct. People should be skeptical of, hmm, well everything. However you are being naive to believe that this is an attempt to teach critical thinking skills. It is exactly the opposite.
I won't mince words here... I frankly think it's quite idiotic to believe that this law is anything more than a new set of code words to allow the teaching of creationism in science class. No, not teaching critical thinking skills, which you seem to think is the aim.
And again, damn it, I never ever stated that I discouraged people from being skeptical of science. As I stated tired time and again, I believe that the admission that we don't have the answers is fundamental to science.
I would be all for teaching the history of science progress in science classes that highlighted how old models were overturned. I would be all for teaching how to critically assess theories and claims to see if they are valid, or even scientific. Do you actually believe that will be the outcome of this bill?
Claiming that any skepticism is good is simply unsupported by the evidence, so I must believe that you are entirely unaware of the creationist agenda that has played out across the US.
Your entire rant, the entire set of posts, attacks me for a position I never held. I have even stated this to you more than once, giving the proof by quoting my earlier posts. Yet you never seem to attack the points that I actually made. Unless you have anything to contribute beyond attacking your own shadows I don't see us having anything more to discuss.
Regards.
Well, you have to kill yourself first...
You must be one of those people who expect everything to be just so.
No room for ambiguities, no room for case by case approaches. A Law must apply to ALL CASES or the approach is not valid. Bleah. Go ahead think that way, but I am certain that you cannot actually live that way. So much for your consistency.
If you cannot see the vast chasm that separates your proposed set of actions from Google's I wonder how you manage to get through the day.