There are other ways of producing electricity. I think the real benefit of this project is that it *does* make fuel that can be burned in an ICE and can be used to fuel aircraft. The alternative would be to give up air flight, which nobody seems to be keen to do.
Looks like a well organised set of beliefs to me. In fact it looks so well organised that I suspect you of caricaturing it. Just because you disagree with something doesn't make it moronic or incoherent.
I then read your next line and must conclude that you are willing to equate desecration of Jewish cemeteries (presumably to incite the Nazi knee-jerk response) with someone REPOSTING SOMETHING THEY FOUND to Facebook
I equate the desecration of Jewish cemeteries with the posting of an offensive remark on a web page dedicated to a young child who has been murdered. They both have the same motivation - to upset the bereaved.
Fortunately, we do not let the people who feel themselves directly harmed decide upon criminal punishments.
The parent was saying that AS A SOCIETY we should ignore it, not that the people directly involved would be able to do so.
I am not suggesting that those directly harmed should decide the punishment, but that in deciding the punishment society should take into account the feelings of those directly harmed.
Do you really think that if the joke had been made about your daughter you would have been able to ignore it? Perhaps you think that the desecration of Jewish cemeteries is also a manifestation of free speech?
Do you really think that the purpose of the arrest was to suppress the joke? The joke had presumably already been seen by the family of the dead girl, thus, the damage was already done. The purpose of the arrest was surely to punish this callous act.
I don't think I would want to put a percentage on it. It is of course possible that it was funded from Israel. If you want to get really conspiratorial, it's also possible that it was funded by Islamist militants in order to provoke anti-Western sentiment.
I have no doubts about the immediate purpose of the film, which is designed to contain just about every possible insult to Mohammed and thus offend Muslims.
See parent. Since the video apparently originated in California, the simplest explanation is that it was funded from there. In the absence of any evidence that it was funded elsewhere, this is the most logical explanation also.
You are right. I meant of course, not Mann, but the Climate Research Unit, headed by Phil Jones. As I understand it, the accusation still stands that the CRU fostered "a climate of non-disclosure", which is contrary to good scientific practice and has set back public understanding of climate change considerably by delivering ammunition to the deniers.
ImaLamer, I applaud most of your post, but let's get one thing straight: freedom of speech includes the right to be offended and demonstrate peacefully against what offends you. Most of the demonstrations have been peaceful, though attention has naturally been focussed on the atrocity at the embassy in Libya, which was probably due to a different issue anyway: http://edition.cnn.com/2012/09/12/opinion/benotman-libya-attack/index.html
before i get trolled, Israel and Zionism does not necessarily equal Jewish or Hebrew, okay?
OK, but a conspiracy theory is still a conspiracy theory.There are enough Islamaphobes in the US willing to fund this kind of garbage without dragging Israel into it. By the way, have you seen it - how much could that garbage have cost anyway?
Personally, I'm fairly sceptical about psychology research, but if you begin your analysis of scientific issues with a crude left/right dichotomy you're bound to come up with some way off answers. The AGW science looks pretty solid to anyone coming to it with an unbiased eye, notwithstanding Mann's dubious practices. Conspiracy theory is necessary to those who deny the evidence because it is the only way of explaining the scientific consensus.
Maybe the fallacy is to assume that there is an explanation to be had here. (Assuming that by explanation, we mean a scientific cause-effect explanation.) In order to have a testable hypothesis, we would have to be able to specify empirically what we mean by consciousness. But consciousness is not an empirical event in terms of physics. The fact is consciousness is the ability to experience empirical events, it is not an emprical event itself. As soon as you ask 'what is consciousness', you have commited a category error, it is no kind of *thing* and therefore not a subject for scientific enquiry.
Because OpenOffice is open source and its fixes and improvements flow downstream freely. LibreOffice takes anything of worth from OpenOffice and does not give back.
Except of course that Libre Office is open source too and OO is free to take anything it likes. In fact, wasn't it OO's reluctance to include their ideas that made the LO developers leave in the first place?
Slashdot Mirror
There are other ways of producing electricity. I think the real benefit of this project is that it *does* make fuel that can be burned in an ICE and can be used to fuel aircraft. The alternative would be to give up air flight, which nobody seems to be keen to do.
Looks like a well organised set of beliefs to me. In fact it looks so well organised that I suspect you of caricaturing it. Just because you disagree with something doesn't make it moronic or incoherent.
http://www.linuxemporium.co.uk/hardware/hardware-laptops.html
I then read your next line and must conclude that you are willing to equate desecration of Jewish cemeteries (presumably to incite the Nazi knee-jerk response) with someone REPOSTING SOMETHING THEY FOUND to Facebook
I equate the desecration of Jewish cemeteries with the posting of an offensive remark on a web page dedicated to a young child who has been murdered. They both have the same motivation - to upset the bereaved.
Fortunately, we do not let the people who feel themselves directly harmed decide upon criminal punishments.
The parent was saying that AS A SOCIETY we should ignore it, not that the people directly involved would be able to do so.
I am not suggesting that those directly harmed should decide the punishment, but that in deciding the punishment society should take into account the feelings of those directly harmed.
you have to either host a server running a seed or find someone who is to run your stuff through
You obviously lost track... signing up couldn't be simpler: http://podupti.me/
Do you really think that if the joke had been made about your daughter you would have been able to ignore it? Perhaps you think that the desecration of Jewish cemeteries is also a manifestation of free speech?
Do you really think that the purpose of the arrest was to suppress the joke? The joke had presumably already been seen by the family of the dead girl, thus, the damage was already done. The purpose of the arrest was surely to punish this callous act.
...with my evenings now? And to think I was only on there five minutes ago! https://diasp.eu/
Interesting. I wonder if they actually got paid?
I don't think I would want to put a percentage on it. It is of course possible that it was funded from Israel. If you want to get really conspiratorial, it's also possible that it was funded by Islamist militants in order to provoke anti-Western sentiment. I have no doubts about the immediate purpose of the film, which is designed to contain just about every possible insult to Mohammed and thus offend Muslims.
See parent. Since the video apparently originated in California, the simplest explanation is that it was funded from there. In the absence of any evidence that it was funded elsewhere, this is the most logical explanation also.
You are right. I meant of course, not Mann, but the Climate Research Unit, headed by Phil Jones. As I understand it, the accusation still stands that the CRU fostered "a climate of non-disclosure", which is contrary to good scientific practice and has set back public understanding of climate change considerably by delivering ammunition to the deniers.
Therefore you need to indicate the chances of any conspiracy theory being true are lower than the chances of it being false
Which is exactly what I did
http://www.upworthy.com/we-saw-the-violence-freedom-of-speech-can-spark-now-lets-see-the-love?g=2&c=cp1
ImaLamer, I applaud most of your post, but let's get one thing straight: freedom of speech includes the right to be offended and demonstrate peacefully against what offends you. Most of the demonstrations have been peaceful, though attention has naturally been focussed on the atrocity at the embassy in Libya, which was probably due to a different issue anyway: http://edition.cnn.com/2012/09/12/opinion/benotman-libya-attack/index.html
before i get trolled, Israel and Zionism does not necessarily equal Jewish or Hebrew, okay?
OK, but a conspiracy theory is still a conspiracy theory.There are enough Islamaphobes in the US willing to fund this kind of garbage without dragging Israel into it. By the way, have you seen it - how much could that garbage have cost anyway?
Except that Google is already 'bubbling' its users, so if you fall into their category of a high payer, you won't even see the lower prices.
Personally, I'm fairly sceptical about psychology research, but if you begin your analysis of scientific issues with a crude left/right dichotomy you're bound to come up with some way off answers. The AGW science looks pretty solid to anyone coming to it with an unbiased eye, notwithstanding Mann's dubious practices. Conspiracy theory is necessary to those who deny the evidence because it is the only way of explaining the scientific consensus.
Microsoft Office runs on Microsoft Windows. Imagine that!
I can't get it to work at all on my Linux system lol
Maybe the fallacy is to assume that there is an explanation to be had here. (Assuming that by explanation, we mean a scientific cause-effect explanation.) In order to have a testable hypothesis, we would have to be able to specify empirically what we mean by consciousness. But consciousness is not an empirical event in terms of physics. The fact is consciousness is the ability to experience empirical events, it is not an emprical event itself. As soon as you ask 'what is consciousness', you have commited a category error, it is no kind of *thing* and therefore not a subject for scientific enquiry.
lol but simulating irritation is not the same as being irritated.
You also seem to believe that society has an obligation to feed its artists, musicians, computer programmers, and actors.
After all, they only produce art, music and software, why should they be fed?
You see what computers can't do is to get irritated that way.
Because OpenOffice is open source and its fixes and improvements flow downstream freely. LibreOffice takes anything of worth from OpenOffice and does not give back.
Except of course that Libre Office is open source too and OO is free to take anything it likes. In fact, wasn't it OO's reluctance to include their ideas that made the LO developers leave in the first place?
Actually a very perceptive question. How do they define self control? How do they measure it? Without knowing this, the story is meaningless.