Since there was one isolated event, that constitutes 'rational risk assessment'?
That's plain nuts!
Low-flying planes in cities are rare. Statistically, one out of <that small number> is significant. One must also weight the occurrences. 2500 deaths adds some weight.
Also, the 9/11 incident is still in the forefront of most people's minds (good pr job there the us govt.)
In your mind, how many 9/11-like incidents need to occur before 'rational' people should start adapting their behavior?
Lest we forget, the writers just had a strike because they are being screwed by the movie industry.
It's all very well using the starving-artists version of 'think of the children' about but the reality is that the artist is a tool like a paintbrush to the mega-corporations which attempt to stifle creativity within the general population and ensure that the only way to satisfy the human need for enrichment-through-artistic-expression (or consumption) is via a cash transaction where they benefit.
Sorry man, but pirating software isn't worth going to jail for. It's not like fighting for freedom or anything.
Are you being ironic?
I mean, the fact that some large corporation in the US can use the American government* to pressure Sweden to have TPB shut down DOESN'T SOUND LIKE FREEDOM TO ME.
No, the problem is the belief that politicians (or whoever) can make one rule which suits everyone.
Belief in uniformity of opportunity has shifted sideways into the belief in uniformity of treatment.
Just to take it to the extreme: "Some people can't walk down the street without having a serious accident. So, all people must be prevented from walking down the street until they sign a disclaimer."
It's true, this hypothetical situation, no matter how absurd, cannot be disproved, and is still technically possible, but that's no reason to give it serious consideration.
And yet, for this grotesque hypothetical situation (from the GGGP):
Then you start getting targetted advertising as a third-party steps in and makes a deal with the ISP. So now they're going to try and sell you rock because the vast majority of music you download is rock
there's already something very similar in-place in the UK. Various ISP's have made a deal with a company to insert targeted ads into your html stream.
I shouldn't like to be in politics. In a scenario where a majority of people have come to a collective opinion not based on the merit of the opinion but rather, as you suggest, through lack of self-reflection and/or analytical-/critical thinking, 'democracy' is undermined at the point where candidates 'pander' to the 'will' of their constituents.
Maybe this explains why (as I understand it) it's impossible to achieve high political office in the US without professing to be fervently religious.
I see the footnote seems relevant (I'm assuming they are randomly 'assigned'):
If fifty million people say a foolish thing, it's still a foolish thing. -- Bertrand Russell
Really, I'm starting to think that religious types only profess their arbitrary beliefs to watch us fall over ourselves to help them see the folly of their point of view; something which they pretend to be blind to. i.e. Their beliefs are flamebait IRL.
I must start carrying a bunch of "-1 Flamebait" forehead-stickers:D
I suppose your wishy-washy factual relativism would have us teach math students that SOME people believe that 2+2=4, and SOME believe that 2+2=5, and we must NOT SAY that the fivers are wrong, because their god hates to be contradicted. Idiocy.
No, no; they're allowed to believe whatever they like.
The best way to show that their belief is firm would be to only travel on planes designed and built by those who also believe that 2+2=5.
Yeah, go ahead and flag me as flamebait rather than engage in intelligent discussion. And you wonder why we question the validity of your beliefs.
Lol! You have *got* to be kidding. This from someone who believes in an all-powerful yet absent super-parent.
I've had this conversation many times.
Me> So, I understand that you believe in a god. How did you choose that particular belief?
OtherGuy> <blank look and medium-length pause> It's what I believe.
Me> Yah; I know; but why?
OtherGuy> I'm just as entitled to me beliefs as you are to yours... etc..
*conversation dies*
Feel free to engage in the 'intelligent discussion' you mentioned. Perhaps you could stand in for OtherGuy? Why choose to believe in a god in just the way that religions have done?
If the whole world believes that you can jump off a cliff without harm does that make it true?
Well... yeah. It does; if everyone that believes it (or doesn't) and tries it, is unharmed.
The Bible has survived over 2000 years, and there is plenty of evidence to suggest that it's far more than an old book of stories.
Really? I guess it's just ignorance on the part of us atheists. Please hook us up with a link to said evidence, so that we can have our eyes opened.
There have been plenty of misconceptions, deceptions, and outright lies surrounding evolution over the years.
[I'm assuming you're not referring to those propagated by religious people] Name one. Please provide a link if you're able.
I realise that from your point of view, the idea
*my* arbitrarily-chosen idea deserves to be treated with equal validity to *your* idea chosen in such a manner as to fit the visible evidence as well as possible
but it just isn't so. Get over it and then set up a religion rehabilitation clinic to help your fellow sufferers.
Slashdot Mirror
Low-flying planes in cities are rare. Statistically, one out of <that small number> is significant. One must also weight the occurrences. 2500 deaths adds some weight.
Also, the 9/11 incident is still in the forefront of most people's minds (good pr job there the us govt.)
In your mind, how many 9/11-like incidents need to occur before 'rational' people should start adapting their behavior?
Lol.
Ok. I meant *recent historical record.
No doubt gp meant "Reasonably" in the sense of "likely". Location and the historical record are factors.
It's happened before so it could happen again.
hehe. they haven't done much with the site...
Perhaps policeBrutalityTube.com is in the pipeline?
Lest we forget, the writers just had a strike because they are being screwed by the movie industry.
It's all very well using the starving-artists version of 'think of the children' about but the reality is that the artist is a tool like a paintbrush to the mega-corporations which attempt to stifle creativity within the general population and ensure that the only way to satisfy the human need for enrichment-through-artistic-expression (or consumption) is via a cash transaction where they benefit.
It just won't do.
Are you being ironic?
I mean, the fact that some large corporation in the US can use the American government* to pressure Sweden to have TPB shut down DOESN'T SOUND LIKE FREEDOM TO ME.
Maybe it does to you?
I particularly like the quote from the BBC's coverage:
* which, backs its actions with the threat of trade sanctions or ultimately , nuclear war.
No, the problem is the belief that politicians (or whoever) can make one rule which suits everyone.
Belief in uniformity of opportunity has shifted sideways into the belief in uniformity of treatment.
Just to take it to the extreme: "Some people can't walk down the street without having a serious accident. So, all people must be prevented from walking down the street until they sign a disclaimer."
-- ;-)
oh yeah.. Idle sux
developers developers developers
People pay it because the mobile operators appear as a cartel - so the consumer has no choice.
Keep it up... There aren't enough people shouting about this...
Perhaps you've heard of the bible?
Yah; because every man and his dog doesn't have five electronic-devices-with-fm-radios-built-in on their person at all times. Oh wait..
Uhh, I mean (doh) this image.
see http://www.truck-nuts.com/nuts.html, image at (2, 2) - w.t.f?
I'd mod you down but you're already at -1. Stop whining about kdawson and whine about the posts instead! n00b
No, they need to get you to look elsewhere so you don't start asking questions about the validity of your own electoral processes.
And yet, for this grotesque hypothetical situation (from the GGGP):
there's already something very similar in-place in the UK. Various ISP's have made a deal with a company to insert targeted ads into your html stream.
I dunno. The thing with consciousness is that it's self-supporting. Once the process has been started, it's a snowball rolling downhill.
I shouldn't like to be in politics. In a scenario where a majority of people have come to a collective opinion not based on the merit of the opinion but rather, as you suggest, through lack of self-reflection and/or analytical-/critical thinking, 'democracy' is undermined at the point where candidates 'pander' to the 'will' of their constituents.
Maybe this explains why (as I understand it) it's impossible to achieve high political office in the US without professing to be fervently religious.
I see the footnote seems relevant (I'm assuming they are randomly 'assigned'):
If fifty million people say a foolish thing, it's still a foolish thing. -- Bertrand Russell
How does that usually work out for you?
Really, I'm starting to think that religious types only profess their arbitrary beliefs to watch us fall over ourselves to help them see the folly of their point of view; something which they pretend to be blind to. i.e. Their beliefs are flamebait IRL.
I must start carrying a bunch of "-1 Flamebait" forehead-stickers :D
No, no; they're allowed to believe whatever they like.
The best way to show that their belief is firm would be to only travel on planes designed and built by those who also believe that 2+2=5.
Lol! You have *got* to be kidding. This from someone who believes in an all-powerful yet absent super-parent.
I've had this conversation many times.
Me> So, I understand that you believe in a god. How did you choose that particular belief?
OtherGuy> <blank look and medium-length pause> It's what I believe.
Me> Yah; I know; but why?
OtherGuy> I'm just as entitled to me beliefs as you are to yours... etc..
*conversation dies*
Feel free to engage in the 'intelligent discussion' you mentioned. Perhaps you could stand in for OtherGuy? Why choose to believe in a god in just the way that religions have done?
Well... yeah. It does; if everyone that believes it (or doesn't) and tries it, is unharmed.
Really? I guess it's just ignorance on the part of us atheists. Please hook us up with a link to said evidence, so that we can have our eyes opened.
[I'm assuming you're not referring to those propagated by religious people] Name one. Please provide a link if you're able.
I realise that from your point of view, the idea
but it just isn't so. Get over it and then set up a religion rehabilitation clinic to help your fellow sufferers.