What basis do you have for telling someone else what constitutes right behavior? What reason does your moral code give for someone to care about someone else's suffering?
No, that is not true. American car companies did that with station wagons, which did fall under the CAFE standards. They raised the price to the point that most people who had a legitimate need for them could not afford them. Car companies raised the prices of station wagons to a point that many people who wanted/needed them could not afford them.
A family with three or more children will need to take two vehicles to go on a family vacation if they cannot afford a station wagon/SUV/minivan. That is in no way more efficient than them using a station wagon/SUV/minivan. It is probably significantly less efficient.
We all have built in moral compasses that work to one extent or another; they've been carefully honed by hundreds of thousands of years of group selection, because those who act too amorally get kicked out of the tribe and have a lower chance of reproduction. You don't need some divine, external lawgiver to explain that.
And if I don't want to reproduce, why should I care?
Why should I follow this "moral code"? Why is that moral code superior to one that says do whatever you want to someone not of your "tribe"? As far as I can tell, there is nothing compelling about your moral code.
Further your moral code falls down because homosexual describes a behavior: having sex with someone of the same sex. Therefore it is an act of will. All Christian condemnation of homosexuality is condemnation of an act. According to Christian morality, self-destructive behavior is morally wrong whether it victimizes someone else or not.
All of the car manufacturers managed to meet the fuel efficiency goals: all of them. And, it turns out, it wasn't even really very hard.
Do you know how they did that? They did it by not making enough of certain models to meet demands. For example,do you know why we have SUVs? Because there was a demand for a vehicle that could carry 4-6 people and some cargo. This demand had been met by station wagons, but station wagons were cars and were calculated as part of the original CAFE standards. Auto manufacturers could not meet the demand for station wagons and meet the CAFE standards. SUVs are "trucks" (at least the original ones were) and therefore were not counted as part of the fleet for purposes of CAFE. Minivans were developed for the same purpose. Both minivans and SUVs were developed to get around the CAFE standards because there was a demand for vehicles that if they were under the CAFE standards would have made it impossible for the auto manufacturers to meet those standards.
I was unaware that Theodore Jennings was around when Jesus was on this earth. How about a reference from someone who actually saw Jesus preach in Palestine? I would settle for a reference for the OP's quote that Jesus lived with a man "as a man lives with a wife".
The irony is that the Bible pretty much says Jesus was gay, or at least bisexual. He hung around with half naked young men and lived with one "as a man lives with his wife." It was only later that various saints and popes came along and decided it was bad.
Please give me a reference for that quote, I am pretty familiar with the Bible (and all other historical references to Jesus) and I do not believe I have ever seen or heard that one.
Once again we have the falsity proclaimed that fays are not allowed to marry. Gays have exactly the same rights to marry someone else that anyone else has.
Really? then why did the press make such a fuss about the Catholic Priests who abused children? They do not make any similar fuss about public school teachers. Yet, if you were a devout Catholic parent whose children attended public school at the high point of priest sexual abuse of children, the odds of one of your child's teachers sexually abusing your child was much higher than of a priest doing so.
Ok, where in law does it say that there can only be four nationwide cell phone network providers?
Based on what I can find there are 6 nationwide cell phone carriers. The six are Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, U.S. Cellular, and TracFone Wireless. Why does it matter if they are nationwide?
Additionally, Verizon and AT&T have their dominant position as the result of being "Baby Bells" (no AT&T is not the original monopolist) and having a local POTS monopoly that they were able to use to bankroll their expansion into cellphones.
Thunderbird has a calendar that meets all of my needs, it also has a contacts that works the same as what I use in Outlook. However, it is probable that MS Dynamics CRM does not integrate with Thunderbird (I don't personally know anyone who uses MS Dynamics CRM).
Until it is real 3D, not just stereoscopic 3D, it won't make that much difference in gaming. If by moving my head to one side or the other I could see around an obstacle (like happens in real life), then 3D would make a big difference for gaming, otherwise, not so much.
Well, considering that the laws that made AT&T a monopoly were passed in the early 1900s, I'm not sure when you think the time was that AT&T (or any other company) was a "telecom giant" before those laws were passed.
Again, the laws that created local cable monopolies were passed in the infancy of cable television, so when was any cable company a "telecom giant" before these laws were passed?
The laws which created the local cable tv monopolies and the telephone monopoly are why we have "telecom giants", not responses to companies becoming "telecom ginats".
Really? All of the comparisons I found on the Internet said that Thunderbird had more features than Outlook.
Personally, Thunderbird does everything I use Outlook for and more (Thunderbird has lots of features I never use, but then so does Outlook).
I wish I had mod points right now. Apple stock is worthless. Your only hope of getting your money back is to find another sucker to pay you as much or more than you paid. Ideally, a stock should pay a dividend that will pay me back what I paid for the stock over a period of time (what that period of time is depends on various factors--age of the investor, inflation rate, etc). The price that other people are willing to pay for the stock is just a bonus.
If a stock does not pay a dividend, you may as well "invest" your money at the casinos.
What explains the limited number of companies offering you high bandwidth Internet service is the laws that created local cable tv monopolies to go along with the laws already establishing local telephone monopolies.
But SOMEHOW my cell phone bills seem to include over 20% in taxes, fees, surcharges.
Yes, but most (if not all) are there by government mandate. If the cell phone companies were allowed to advertise how much those are, there would be pressure to get them repealed. If you look at most government taxes and fees, the regulations regarding them are usually designed to make it less likely that you will notice them. Think about how many people you know who believe that an income tax refund is money that the government is giving them, rather than what it really is, repayment of an interest free loan you gave the government.
There is no evidence that there is such a thing as a "natural monopoly". The "natural monopoly" theory was popularized to justify the government creating the AT&T telephone monopoly back in the beginning of the 20th Century. The government wanted a telephone monopoly because a monopoly is easier for the government to control than a host of competitors.
Depends. I already pay for The Economist as a news source. Sure, there are plenty of other places to get "breaking news" online. If I want to read high quality journalism... less so. When the NYT goes proper paywall, I'll pay. When the Daily Mail does, I'll rejoice;-)
-P
So, you want some poor quality journalism to go with the high quality journalism you get from The Economist? I am baffled by people who think the NYT is a good source of news. In the early 30s, they were printing stories denying the Soviet created famine in the Ukraine (stories they won a Pulitzer Prize for). During WWII, they denied/downplayed the Holocaust. More recently, one of their star reporters was discovered to file "on location" stories from his apartment in NY. There are more cases of such journalistic malfeasance by the NYT that covers most of its history.
Slashdot Mirror
What basis do you have for telling someone else what constitutes right behavior? What reason does your moral code give for someone to care about someone else's suffering?
No, that is not true. American car companies did that with station wagons, which did fall under the CAFE standards. They raised the price to the point that most people who had a legitimate need for them could not afford them. Car companies raised the prices of station wagons to a point that many people who wanted/needed them could not afford them.
A family with three or more children will need to take two vehicles to go on a family vacation if they cannot afford a station wagon/SUV/minivan. That is in no way more efficient than them using a station wagon/SUV/minivan. It is probably significantly less efficient.
We all have built in moral compasses that work to one extent or another; they've been carefully honed by hundreds of thousands of years of group selection, because those who act too amorally get kicked out of the tribe and have a lower chance of reproduction. You don't need some divine, external lawgiver to explain that.
And if I don't want to reproduce, why should I care?
Why should I follow this "moral code"? Why is that moral code superior to one that says do whatever you want to someone not of your "tribe"? As far as I can tell, there is nothing compelling about your moral code.
Further your moral code falls down because homosexual describes a behavior: having sex with someone of the same sex. Therefore it is an act of will. All Christian condemnation of homosexuality is condemnation of an act. According to Christian morality, self-destructive behavior is morally wrong whether it victimizes someone else or not.
What faith is that?
Saying that your basis to call something morally wrong is your "moral reasoning" is circular logic.
All of the car manufacturers managed to meet the fuel efficiency goals: all of them. And, it turns out, it wasn't even really very hard.
Do you know how they did that? They did it by not making enough of certain models to meet demands. For example,do you know why we have SUVs? Because there was a demand for a vehicle that could carry 4-6 people and some cargo. This demand had been met by station wagons, but station wagons were cars and were calculated as part of the original CAFE standards. Auto manufacturers could not meet the demand for station wagons and meet the CAFE standards. SUVs are "trucks" (at least the original ones were) and therefore were not counted as part of the fleet for purposes of CAFE. Minivans were developed for the same purpose. Both minivans and SUVs were developed to get around the CAFE standards because there was a demand for vehicles that if they were under the CAFE standards would have made it impossible for the auto manufacturers to meet those standards.
The numbers I saw were number of students sexually abused per 100,000. Those numbers were based on federal crime summaries.
I was unaware that Theodore Jennings was around when Jesus was on this earth. How about a reference from someone who actually saw Jesus preach in Palestine? I would settle for a reference for the OP's quote that Jesus lived with a man "as a man lives with a wife".
The irony is that the Bible pretty much says Jesus was gay, or at least bisexual. He hung around with half naked young men and lived with one "as a man lives with his wife." It was only later that various saints and popes came along and decided it was bad.
Please give me a reference for that quote, I am pretty familiar with the Bible (and all other historical references to Jesus) and I do not believe I have ever seen or heard that one.
Once again we have the falsity proclaimed that fays are not allowed to marry. Gays have exactly the same rights to marry someone else that anyone else has.
Really? then why did the press make such a fuss about the Catholic Priests who abused children? They do not make any similar fuss about public school teachers. Yet, if you were a devout Catholic parent whose children attended public school at the high point of priest sexual abuse of children, the odds of one of your child's teachers sexually abusing your child was much higher than of a priest doing so.
Upon what do you base your claim that anything is morally wrong?
Ok, where in law does it say that there can only be four nationwide cell phone network providers?
Based on what I can find there are 6 nationwide cell phone carriers. The six are Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, U.S. Cellular, and TracFone Wireless. Why does it matter if they are nationwide?
Additionally, Verizon and AT&T have their dominant position as the result of being "Baby Bells" (no AT&T is not the original monopolist) and having a local POTS monopoly that they were able to use to bankroll their expansion into cellphones.
What is Android doing that causes this problem?
It is competing with the Jesus Phone...I mean Iphone.
Thunderbird has a calendar that meets all of my needs, it also has a contacts that works the same as what I use in Outlook. However, it is probable that MS Dynamics CRM does not integrate with Thunderbird (I don't personally know anyone who uses MS Dynamics CRM).
Until it is real 3D, not just stereoscopic 3D, it won't make that much difference in gaming. If by moving my head to one side or the other I could see around an obstacle (like happens in real life), then 3D would make a big difference for gaming, otherwise, not so much.
Well, considering that the laws that made AT&T a monopoly were passed in the early 1900s, I'm not sure when you think the time was that AT&T (or any other company) was a "telecom giant" before those laws were passed.
Again, the laws that created local cable monopolies were passed in the infancy of cable television, so when was any cable company a "telecom giant" before these laws were passed?
The laws which created the local cable tv monopolies and the telephone monopoly are why we have "telecom giants", not responses to companies becoming "telecom ginats".
Really? All of the comparisons I found on the Internet said that Thunderbird had more features than Outlook.
Personally, Thunderbird does everything I use Outlook for and more (Thunderbird has lots of features I never use, but then so does Outlook).
Actually, diamonds are valueless. The only reason that diamonds have the price they do is that there is an artificially created scarcity.
I wish I had mod points right now. Apple stock is worthless. Your only hope of getting your money back is to find another sucker to pay you as much or more than you paid. Ideally, a stock should pay a dividend that will pay me back what I paid for the stock over a period of time (what that period of time is depends on various factors--age of the investor, inflation rate, etc). The price that other people are willing to pay for the stock is just a bonus.
If a stock does not pay a dividend, you may as well "invest" your money at the casinos.
Give me something to replace Outlook and I can start to kick MS Office out of our environment.
P.S: I always use open source whenever it covers most of my needs.
Mozilla Thunderbird. I use it at home and everything I have seen indicates that it will work as a MS Exchange client.
What explains the limited number of companies offering you high bandwidth Internet service is the laws that created local cable tv monopolies to go along with the laws already establishing local telephone monopolies.
But SOMEHOW my cell phone bills seem to include over 20% in taxes, fees, surcharges.
Yes, but most (if not all) are there by government mandate. If the cell phone companies were allowed to advertise how much those are, there would be pressure to get them repealed. If you look at most government taxes and fees, the regulations regarding them are usually designed to make it less likely that you will notice them. Think about how many people you know who believe that an income tax refund is money that the government is giving them, rather than what it really is, repayment of an interest free loan you gave the government.
There is no evidence that there is such a thing as a "natural monopoly". The "natural monopoly" theory was popularized to justify the government creating the AT&T telephone monopoly back in the beginning of the 20th Century. The government wanted a telephone monopoly because a monopoly is easier for the government to control than a host of competitors.
Depends. I already pay for The Economist as a news source. Sure, there are plenty of other places to get "breaking news" online. If I want to read high quality journalism ... less so. When the NYT goes proper paywall, I'll pay. When the Daily Mail does, I'll rejoice ;-)
-P
So, you want some poor quality journalism to go with the high quality journalism you get from The Economist? I am baffled by people who think the NYT is a good source of news. In the early 30s, they were printing stories denying the Soviet created famine in the Ukraine (stories they won a Pulitzer Prize for). During WWII, they denied/downplayed the Holocaust. More recently, one of their star reporters was discovered to file "on location" stories from his apartment in NY. There are more cases of such journalistic malfeasance by the NYT that covers most of its history.