I'm not a Christian, but that's an unfair criticism. The bible explicitly tells Christians that the laws from the old testament are no longer applicable.
Yes; I think he was implying that such actions were unconstitutional. The supreme court can be wrong, obviously; they've changed their interpretation on certain issues over time.
It is a crime. It isn't theft, it's copyright infringement. And the criminal isn't the downloader or MegaUpload; it's the original file uploader. Download a copyrighted file is not a crime. Sharing it is. That's why you'll see torrenters getting sued, but not direct downloaders; it's the person doing the redistribution that is breaking copyright.
I gave all my passwords to my wife, and I have all hers. Neither of us demanded it; it just made sense.
But the spousal relationship is unique, ethically and legally. I wouldn't normally do that with any other person except as an exception, and I would change passwords afterwards.
He's certainly a problem poster, and is doing a pretty respectable job of completely ruining slashdot; but I'm not getting the pro-microsoft angle from him. He's more of an Apple nutjob. Irrationally anti-google, true, and obviously does use multiple accounts.
I hope the slashdot editors are noticing how they're being gamed by this guy. It's costing them readers. If bonch and similar problems aren't fixed, I'm probably going to stop visiting here.
Can you point me towards good information for/against climate change so I can make an educated decision?
It's nearly impossible. The issue is so politicized that there's almost no way to get simple, objective facts. Look at the discussion here... the fact that the whole issue is couched in terms of 'belief', pro or con, is frightening.
Listen to the less-rabid people on both sides, and assume the truth is likely somewhere in between. And most importantly, don't stake out a position. Stay flexible. Climatology is still a young science, and the next few decades will bring many new discoveries. If you get emotionally attached to a position, you'll definitely end up wrong.
Climate change affects TWO of the top Human requirements on this Earth, Food production, and access to drinking water. Without a constant supply of either of these, misery will prevail.
Does it affect them negatively or positively? Canada and Siberia have a lot of land... and warmer temperatures can lead directly to more precipitation.
the denier talking point you made was literally created out of whole cloth by an oil executive who just thought it up one day and then said it in an interview with the media. It's a joke.
Don't be ridiculous. The point that a warmer ecosystem corresponds closely with a more active and diverse biosphere is not some 'talking point' in some conspiracy. It's a historical fact you can learn from studying the fossil record.
Most of the damage claimed to come from global warming isn't truly damage; it's just change, which can certainly be troublesome for humans. The net result, though, in the long term, is unlikely to be a net negative.
What is much more likely a 'talking point' is the idea that you can take an argument and rebut it by loudly claiming 'oil executive', which is probably something you read in a blog somewhere and liked. It is a meaningless rebuttal.
He's overly simplifying, and that's harmful to his cause. Of course the behavior of the climate is completely based on the laws of physics. That doesn't mean it's simple. A few simple laws times a few trillion trillion molecules can make a very complex system, with subtleties that we don't begin to grasp. Chaotic systems cannot be reliably modeled.
It's as meaningless as saying we understand chemistry, and since the human body is made of chemicals, we understand completely how the brain works.
That's not at all what I'm arguing, and in fact you'd have to be pretty distracted to think I said anything like what you think you're responding to. You would do well to pause a moment and reflect before you post, I think.
Anyway... if you think climate change theory is anywhere near as well supported as the theory of evolution, you know little about either.
If the science for climate change continues to pan out for another fifty or hundred years, then maybe those people denying it can be classified as cranks. Right now, though, it's ridiculous to claim that climate change is as well established as evolution. That's insulting to the theory of evolution.
The Vaccine only works on "some" people. If you fail to get the flu shot yourself, catch the flu and then pass it to some vulnerable child or elderly person that the flu shot did not have an affect on and they die, you're directly responsible for their death.
No, by definition, you're indirectly responsible. Not directly.
Err, no it's not. This is wrong. Do you think Monsanto, BASF, and etc. spend millions of dollars with highly trained scientists just doing the same sort of things that Aztecs (and others) were doing centuries ago? Please.
This is great. At least it's a counter to those businesses that have to leave the US because of nutjob stance 'A'. Here's a company that came to the US because of Europe's nutjob stance 'B'
I pretty much agree with you. I typically save up the maximum amount of vacation time, and then take the minimal amount of vacation not to lose days... if it works into the schedule.
If most companies would implement the policy of cashing in vacation days... working, but just taking the money... I'd pretty much never take a vacation day again.
Slashdot Mirror
we can all agree that Americans need to be taken down a notch.
Your insecurity is very obvious.
So you hate both freedom and lack of freedom.
sensible end-of-life planning.
That sounds suspiciously euphemistic. Probably that and 'killing granny' are both half-way descriptive methods of describing the same thing.
I'm not a Christian, but that's an unfair criticism. The bible explicitly tells Christians that the laws from the old testament are no longer applicable.
Yes; I think he was implying that such actions were unconstitutional. The supreme court can be wrong, obviously; they've changed their interpretation on certain issues over time.
It is a crime. It isn't theft, it's copyright infringement. And the criminal isn't the downloader or MegaUpload; it's the original file uploader. Download a copyrighted file is not a crime. Sharing it is. That's why you'll see torrenters getting sued, but not direct downloaders; it's the person doing the redistribution that is breaking copyright.
Because breaking the law will show the law enforcers that they are wrong for taking down a site that was breaking the law. Yeah! You go!
What law was MegaUpload breaking? They were compliant with the DMCA, from what I understand. They were simply a file repository for their users.
I gave all my passwords to my wife, and I have all hers. Neither of us demanded it; it just made sense.
But the spousal relationship is unique, ethically and legally. I wouldn't normally do that with any other person except as an exception, and I would change passwords afterwards.
He's certainly a problem poster, and is doing a pretty respectable job of completely ruining slashdot; but I'm not getting the pro-microsoft angle from him. He's more of an Apple nutjob. Irrationally anti-google, true, and obviously does use multiple accounts.
I hope the slashdot editors are noticing how they're being gamed by this guy. It's costing them readers. If bonch and similar problems aren't fixed, I'm probably going to stop visiting here.
Can you point me towards good information for/against climate change so I can make an educated decision?
It's nearly impossible. The issue is so politicized that there's almost no way to get simple, objective facts. Look at the discussion here... the fact that the whole issue is couched in terms of 'belief', pro or con, is frightening.
Listen to the less-rabid people on both sides, and assume the truth is likely somewhere in between. And most importantly, don't stake out a position. Stay flexible. Climatology is still a young science, and the next few decades will bring many new discoveries. If you get emotionally attached to a position, you'll definitely end up wrong.
Climate change affects TWO of the top Human requirements on this Earth, Food production, and access to drinking water. Without a constant supply of either of these, misery will prevail.
Does it affect them negatively or positively? Canada and Siberia have a lot of land... and warmer temperatures can lead directly to more precipitation.
the denier talking point you made was literally created out of whole cloth by an oil executive who just thought it up one day and then said it in an interview with the media. It's a joke.
Don't be ridiculous. The point that a warmer ecosystem corresponds closely with a more active and diverse biosphere is not some 'talking point' in some conspiracy. It's a historical fact you can learn from studying the fossil record.
Most of the damage claimed to come from global warming isn't truly damage; it's just change, which can certainly be troublesome for humans. The net result, though, in the long term, is unlikely to be a net negative.
What is much more likely a 'talking point' is the idea that you can take an argument and rebut it by loudly claiming 'oil executive', which is probably something you read in a blog somewhere and liked. It is a meaningless rebuttal.
He's overly simplifying, and that's harmful to his cause. Of course the behavior of the climate is completely based on the laws of physics. That doesn't mean it's simple. A few simple laws times a few trillion trillion molecules can make a very complex system, with subtleties that we don't begin to grasp. Chaotic systems cannot be reliably modeled.
It's as meaningless as saying we understand chemistry, and since the human body is made of chemicals, we understand completely how the brain works.
That's not at all what I'm arguing, and in fact you'd have to be pretty distracted to think I said anything like what you think you're responding to. You would do well to pause a moment and reflect before you post, I think.
Anyway... if you think climate change theory is anywhere near as well supported as the theory of evolution, you know little about either.
And I give a shit just how a student of history misunderstands atmospheric physics because WHY again?
You don't give a shit because you have a very small, provincial, narrow mind.
No.
If the science for climate change continues to pan out for another fifty or hundred years, then maybe those people denying it can be classified as cranks. Right now, though, it's ridiculous to claim that climate change is as well established as evolution. That's insulting to the theory of evolution.
The Vaccine only works on "some" people. If you fail to get the flu shot yourself, catch the flu and then pass it to some vulnerable child or elderly person that the flu shot did not have an affect on and they die, you're directly responsible for their death.
No, by definition, you're indirectly responsible. Not directly.
Err, no it's not. This is wrong. Do you think Monsanto, BASF, and etc. spend millions of dollars with highly trained scientists just doing the same sort of things that Aztecs (and others) were doing centuries ago? Please.
Yes. Just faster.
This is great. At least it's a counter to those businesses that have to leave the US because of nutjob stance 'A'. Here's a company that came to the US because of Europe's nutjob stance 'B'
Notice how the Democrats have the exact same problem?
Hello, 'ronpaulisanidiot'. Posting anonymously today?
None. It's a nonsensical argument.
No. Give your employees choice.
I pretty much agree with you. I typically save up the maximum amount of vacation time, and then take the minimal amount of vacation not to lose days... if it works into the schedule.
If most companies would implement the policy of cashing in vacation days... working, but just taking the money... I'd pretty much never take a vacation day again.
What we need now is three $40k jobs, not two $60k jobs. Wages aren't a problem. Employment is.