The thing that you, and all the other idiots like you overlook is that if Big Pharma Company A chooses to not pursue a cure for Disease X so that they can profit from treating the symptoms, they run the risk that Big Pharma Company B will develop it. Then Big Pharma Company A not only loses the potential profit from selling the treatment for symptoms, they also lose the profit from selling the cure. The other thing you overlook is that people who die no longer spend any money on products from Big Pharma. Big Pharma has an interest in keeping its customers alive as long as possible, so as to keep those people as customers. Thus Big Pharma has an interest in curing any disease which is terminal.
I do not know about you, but on numerous occasions I use a GPS to travel routes that take me through intersections that are not 90 degree turns, and may have more than three possible choices of direction. In those cases. having the map display on the GPS oriented the same as the direction I am traveling is invaluable in determining which turn to take.
I/10th of a pound at less than 2 pounds is significant. If the Ipad was a 5 pound item, 1/10th of a pound would be trivial. At less than 1.5 pounds, 0.10 pounds is significant (although not quite a big deal). I would say that the Ipad is close to the upper limit of where that amount of weight difference is significant. Personally, I would think that 5% is about the point where weight difference goes from significant to insignificant for a hand held device. Less than 5% is not significant, greater than 5% is noteworthy.
There are a couple of inaccuracies to your post. The first is the inevitable seeping of gas into the ground. There was some of that in the stations with the old style underground tanks. However, those tanks have all been replaced for over a decade now. In addition, the primary thing which seeped into the ground at gas stations was MBTE, a government mandated additive to gasoline (the government no longer mandates adding MBTE to gasoline). The thing about MBTE is that it is highly volatile. As a result, the most efficient way to clean up a site where the ground is contaminated with MBTE is to make sure the dirt is exposed to the air for several years. If, as would be the case with a gas station site, there are areas several feet down with concentrations of MBTE contamination the remedy is to dig down and place venting pipes from those areas to the surface. I believe the time frame for the MBTE to clear out of the soil if it properly vented is about 5 years.
Right, that is why I have to present a photo ID to board an airplane, buy alcohol or cigarettes, purchase a firearm, enter the Department of Justice Building and numerous other routine things but some people don't think I should have to do so in order to vote. My opposition to motor voter is not because of fraud. My opposition to motor voter is that if someone can't be bothered to take any extra effort in order to register it is unlikely that they will take the effort to have a clue who or what they are voting for. My support for voters needing to show a picture ID is because I believe that the people who vote should be who they say they are when they show up to vote.
No, these raw numbers are not meaningless. If, as the RIAA reports, record sales have only fallen (for whatever reason) $8 million since the advent of Napster (the beginning of digital download piracy), then it is not possible that RIAA members have lost $58 million a year to piracy. Which is the point being made in the summary.
I was thinking along the same lines, the violence in the book between school kids makes the book inappropriate for children. I can not, however, think of any scenes that qualify as pornographic. It may be that the school district does not consider it pornographic, but agrees with the judgement that it is inappropriate for children and suspended the teacher for that reason.
No, it does not explain why they have less trouble with graft. Scandinavian countries had less trouble with graft than Italy or Greece before there was even a concept of a cashless economy. It is a cultural thing. It is even possible that the same cultural factors that led them to have less trouble with graft also contribute to them moving so easily towards a cashless economy.
The thing is when I google those things, I get a result that tells me why they are on slashdot. When I google Andy Marken, I remain unenlightened as to why an article about him is on slashdot.
I have never heard of the guy. When I googled his name I came up with three kinds of links: links to his (or his company's) websites, links to articles by people who said he is a terrible PR person, and links to articles like this one. After reviewing the available information, I am confused as to why anyone would think he has anything useful to say to slashdot readers.
If you are saying 20 years you could only be referring to the christian interpolations into the works of Josephus.
No, I am referring to the writings of Paul. However, three of the Gospels were also written before Josephus wrote (probably less than 30 years after Jesus death). Josephus wrote something like 40-50 years after Jesus' death.
The thing is, every document we have of Mithra that bears any resemblance to the records in the Gospel accounts were written well after the Gospels. All of the documents about Mithraism that we have from the first century or earlier do not contain any reference to material similar to what is in the Gospels.
Absolutely, I can see this as being a great way to get these pictures, especially if it is being done openly. As in, "Yes, I know they want pictures of obscure locations (such as the back of Lincoln Memorial), but they make it fun to go out of my way to take those picutres."
Others have very thoroughly answered your question, in particular element-o.p. gave a very clear example of why this is not control, but is rather influence.
How do you know what the intent was? All you know is the action. Throwing a phone out the window has the significant risk of breaking the phone or having it land at a location where it will be unrecoverable. That means, as far as I can tell you, are attempting to deprive them of the the item permanently. You are taking an action that has a high probability of making the phone unusable.
That is as may be, I am not familiar with UK law. The person I responded to said, "At least here in the UK," and then proceeded to give specific examples of definition from the law. They never delineated between the different areas of the UK, so I am unable to address what portion of the UK they were referring to. I was only able to address the definitions that they gave as being part of "UK law".
This is not about controlling people. Even though the guy who did the research refers to it that way. This is about offering people incentives to do something that they otherwise would not do. Part of that may be designing a game to get people to take pictures of places that people rarely, if ever, bother to photograph, but it is still about giving people an incentive to do something you would like them to do.
How would this not be robbery as defined by UK law? The definition of Robbery you gave is "taking the property of another, with the intent to permanently deprive the person of that property, by means of force or fear." OK, let's look at that, "taking the property of another", yeah, that is what is being talked about here. "with the intent to permanently deprive that person of that property," they tossed it out the window, that sure seems to me to be an attempt to permanently deprive them of its use. "by means of force or fear", they grabbed it out of the persons hand, that is, by means of force (and maybe fear as well).
I'm sorry, but by the definition you gave in your post, this is robbery by UK law. Now it may be that there are other elements to UK law that would make this not be robbery, but your post fails to make that case.
It is a reference to a man who Paul met who was the brother of "the Lord". In the context, "the Lord" is clearly Jesus and the fact that James was his brother clearly indicates that Paul thought of him as a man.
The point is that the documentation for Alexander the Great is considered reliable, yet the earliest existing document we have concerning him was written 400 years after his death and the oldest copy of that that we possess was made in the 1100s. The earliest document we have concerning Jesus was written less than 20 years after his death and the oldest complete copy of the entire New Testament that we possess was made in the 4th Century. This does not make the accounts of his life accurate, but it makes it improbable that he never lived.
Actually you touch on the problem with this article. There have been a group of people who came to the conclusion that the "young and savvy" would decide the future and that everything old that they wanted to do away with was just old and useless. I do not know how far back it goes, but that belief gained strong ground in the late 60s. The problem is that the "young and savvy" do not understand as much about the world and why it works the way it does as they think they do. The result of that is that they often learn as they get older that some of the things they thought were useless, outdated cruft are actually essential to the functioning of the world and rather than the world getting better when you get rid of those things, it actually gets worse.
That is completely false. Paul repeatedly referred to Jesus as a man who lived as a man. In particular, in Galatians 1:19 he refers to meeting "James, the Lord's brother." There are other references in his writing that indicate that Paul considered Jesus to be a man who actually lived and at one point he makes a statement that is essentially, "If you don't believe me, there are over 500 witnesses still living who met Him."
I really do not think that in a case like that, that this clause would hold up. The type of lawsuit that a "binding arbitration" clause stops is one about interpretation of the contract. However, a lawsuit over the company doing something/allowing something to happen that everyone would agree was a violation of the contract (or not protected under the contract) and the only real questions in the suit is whether the company is actually liable for the events in question and how much that liability is, will usually stand up in the face of such arbitration clauses (as long as you have gone through the arbitration process first).
Two points on this. First, our documentation of Alexander the Great has an even larger gap than what you postulate for the Gospels. Second, the earliest letters of Paul (which refer to Jesus) are dated to the 40s. Additionally, the Gospel of Luke was written before 67 A.D. (the Gospel was written before the Acts of the Apostles, which was written before Paul's death in 67).
One fatal flaw with your story idea. If Jesus Christ's DNA is truly unique (I am assuming that you are basing this on the idea of the virgin birth and that God is his father), where would you get the DNA to create the clone?
Slashdot Mirror
OK, how about it? Are they from industry leaders?
The thing that you, and all the other idiots like you overlook is that if Big Pharma Company A chooses to not pursue a cure for Disease X so that they can profit from treating the symptoms, they run the risk that Big Pharma Company B will develop it. Then Big Pharma Company A not only loses the potential profit from selling the treatment for symptoms, they also lose the profit from selling the cure. The other thing you overlook is that people who die no longer spend any money on products from Big Pharma. Big Pharma has an interest in keeping its customers alive as long as possible, so as to keep those people as customers. Thus Big Pharma has an interest in curing any disease which is terminal.
I do not know about you, but on numerous occasions I use a GPS to travel routes that take me through intersections that are not 90 degree turns, and may have more than three possible choices of direction. In those cases. having the map display on the GPS oriented the same as the direction I am traveling is invaluable in determining which turn to take.
I/10th of a pound at less than 2 pounds is significant. If the Ipad was a 5 pound item, 1/10th of a pound would be trivial. At less than 1.5 pounds, 0.10 pounds is significant (although not quite a big deal). I would say that the Ipad is close to the upper limit of where that amount of weight difference is significant. Personally, I would think that 5% is about the point where weight difference goes from significant to insignificant for a hand held device. Less than 5% is not significant, greater than 5% is noteworthy.
There are a couple of inaccuracies to your post. The first is the inevitable seeping of gas into the ground. There was some of that in the stations with the old style underground tanks. However, those tanks have all been replaced for over a decade now. In addition, the primary thing which seeped into the ground at gas stations was MBTE, a government mandated additive to gasoline (the government no longer mandates adding MBTE to gasoline). The thing about MBTE is that it is highly volatile. As a result, the most efficient way to clean up a site where the ground is contaminated with MBTE is to make sure the dirt is exposed to the air for several years. If, as would be the case with a gas station site, there are areas several feet down with concentrations of MBTE contamination the remedy is to dig down and place venting pipes from those areas to the surface. I believe the time frame for the MBTE to clear out of the soil if it properly vented is about 5 years.
It is unlikely that that particular clause of your will will get fulfilled, as it quite likely violates the law on the handling of a human corpse.
Right, that is why I have to present a photo ID to board an airplane, buy alcohol or cigarettes, purchase a firearm, enter the Department of Justice Building and numerous other routine things but some people don't think I should have to do so in order to vote. My opposition to motor voter is not because of fraud. My opposition to motor voter is that if someone can't be bothered to take any extra effort in order to register it is unlikely that they will take the effort to have a clue who or what they are voting for. My support for voters needing to show a picture ID is because I believe that the people who vote should be who they say they are when they show up to vote.
No, these raw numbers are not meaningless. If, as the RIAA reports, record sales have only fallen (for whatever reason) $8 million since the advent of Napster (the beginning of digital download piracy), then it is not possible that RIAA members have lost $58 million a year to piracy. Which is the point being made in the summary.
I was thinking along the same lines, the violence in the book between school kids makes the book inappropriate for children. I can not, however, think of any scenes that qualify as pornographic. It may be that the school district does not consider it pornographic, but agrees with the judgement that it is inappropriate for children and suspended the teacher for that reason.
No, it does not explain why they have less trouble with graft. Scandinavian countries had less trouble with graft than Italy or Greece before there was even a concept of a cashless economy. It is a cultural thing. It is even possible that the same cultural factors that led them to have less trouble with graft also contribute to them moving so easily towards a cashless economy.
The thing is when I google those things, I get a result that tells me why they are on slashdot. When I google Andy Marken, I remain unenlightened as to why an article about him is on slashdot.
I have never heard of the guy. When I googled his name I came up with three kinds of links: links to his (or his company's) websites, links to articles by people who said he is a terrible PR person, and links to articles like this one. After reviewing the available information, I am confused as to why anyone would think he has anything useful to say to slashdot readers.
If you are saying 20 years you could only be referring to the christian interpolations into the works of Josephus.
No, I am referring to the writings of Paul. However, three of the Gospels were also written before Josephus wrote (probably less than 30 years after Jesus death). Josephus wrote something like 40-50 years after Jesus' death.
The thing is, every document we have of Mithra that bears any resemblance to the records in the Gospel accounts were written well after the Gospels. All of the documents about Mithraism that we have from the first century or earlier do not contain any reference to material similar to what is in the Gospels.
Absolutely, I can see this as being a great way to get these pictures, especially if it is being done openly. As in, "Yes, I know they want pictures of obscure locations (such as the back of Lincoln Memorial), but they make it fun to go out of my way to take those picutres."
Others have very thoroughly answered your question, in particular element-o.p. gave a very clear example of why this is not control, but is rather influence.
How do you know what the intent was? All you know is the action. Throwing a phone out the window has the significant risk of breaking the phone or having it land at a location where it will be unrecoverable. That means, as far as I can tell you, are attempting to deprive them of the the item permanently. You are taking an action that has a high probability of making the phone unusable.
That is as may be, I am not familiar with UK law. The person I responded to said, "At least here in the UK," and then proceeded to give specific examples of definition from the law. They never delineated between the different areas of the UK, so I am unable to address what portion of the UK they were referring to. I was only able to address the definitions that they gave as being part of "UK law".
This is not about controlling people. Even though the guy who did the research refers to it that way. This is about offering people incentives to do something that they otherwise would not do. Part of that may be designing a game to get people to take pictures of places that people rarely, if ever, bother to photograph, but it is still about giving people an incentive to do something you would like them to do.
How would this not be robbery as defined by UK law? The definition of Robbery you gave is "taking the property of another, with the intent to permanently deprive the person of that property, by means of force or fear." OK, let's look at that, "taking the property of another", yeah, that is what is being talked about here. "with the intent to permanently deprive that person of that property," they tossed it out the window, that sure seems to me to be an attempt to permanently deprive them of its use. "by means of force or fear", they grabbed it out of the persons hand, that is, by means of force (and maybe fear as well).
I'm sorry, but by the definition you gave in your post, this is robbery by UK law. Now it may be that there are other elements to UK law that would make this not be robbery, but your post fails to make that case.
It is a reference to a man who Paul met who was the brother of "the Lord". In the context, "the Lord" is clearly Jesus and the fact that James was his brother clearly indicates that Paul thought of him as a man.
The point is that the documentation for Alexander the Great is considered reliable, yet the earliest existing document we have concerning him was written 400 years after his death and the oldest copy of that that we possess was made in the 1100s. The earliest document we have concerning Jesus was written less than 20 years after his death and the oldest complete copy of the entire New Testament that we possess was made in the 4th Century. This does not make the accounts of his life accurate, but it makes it improbable that he never lived.
Actually you touch on the problem with this article. There have been a group of people who came to the conclusion that the "young and savvy" would decide the future and that everything old that they wanted to do away with was just old and useless. I do not know how far back it goes, but that belief gained strong ground in the late 60s. The problem is that the "young and savvy" do not understand as much about the world and why it works the way it does as they think they do. The result of that is that they often learn as they get older that some of the things they thought were useless, outdated cruft are actually essential to the functioning of the world and rather than the world getting better when you get rid of those things, it actually gets worse.
That is completely false. Paul repeatedly referred to Jesus as a man who lived as a man. In particular, in Galatians 1:19 he refers to meeting "James, the Lord's brother." There are other references in his writing that indicate that Paul considered Jesus to be a man who actually lived and at one point he makes a statement that is essentially, "If you don't believe me, there are over 500 witnesses still living who met Him."
I really do not think that in a case like that, that this clause would hold up. The type of lawsuit that a "binding arbitration" clause stops is one about interpretation of the contract. However, a lawsuit over the company doing something/allowing something to happen that everyone would agree was a violation of the contract (or not protected under the contract) and the only real questions in the suit is whether the company is actually liable for the events in question and how much that liability is, will usually stand up in the face of such arbitration clauses (as long as you have gone through the arbitration process first).
Two points on this. First, our documentation of Alexander the Great has an even larger gap than what you postulate for the Gospels. Second, the earliest letters of Paul (which refer to Jesus) are dated to the 40s. Additionally, the Gospel of Luke was written before 67 A.D. (the Gospel was written before the Acts of the Apostles, which was written before Paul's death in 67).
One fatal flaw with your story idea. If Jesus Christ's DNA is truly unique (I am assuming that you are basing this on the idea of the virgin birth and that God is his father), where would you get the DNA to create the clone?