TFA mentions that they have a Kickstarter project going to build a new arena (made out of tougher materials so they can allow higher-powered weapons while still keeping spectators safe), if anyone wants to kick in a few bucks. Linky.
Apple is doing nothing of the sort. Making your working conditions (or your business partner's) slightly better is a PR move, not a real attempt at change. I'm under no illusions that Apple is the only company doing that (and I never said they were, despite you and someone else both reading that into my words)... but they are making no real attempt to solve the problem, either.
Ultimately, it shouldn't be up to Apple, Samsung, Google or the consumers to protect the people of China.
That's true enough, but neither does it absolve those parties of responsibility. Nothing is stopping Apple from refraining from using business partners where workers are treated poorly, even if that means not doing business in China.
My understanding of US trademark law, at least (and I have no idea if the laws applicable here are the same), is that you are not forced to defend the trademark or lose it if it isn't an infringing use of your trademark. Since "The Hobbit" is the name of a book (and now a movie), having a bar named the same thing would not be an infringement, and anyone suing over it wouldn't be "forced to by the law", they'd just be dicks.
Yeah, but on the other hand, imagine if you die between the switch to standard time and the switch back to DST - you get a free hour in that case! The solution, clearly, is to commit suicide during the winter to guarantee that you will be able to get this free hour of sweet sweet life.
It is a fact that fetuses have no rights. That's not my opinion.
No. That's like arguing, prior to the abolition of slavery, that it is a fact that slaves have no rights because they had previously been accorded none. Our country is founded on the philosophy of natural rights, and the fact that we may not have heretofore recognized some right does not mean it doesn't exist. This is a poor argument that should be abundantly clear is invalid based on the fact that we have, multiple times in our history, collectively realized that we were violating someone's rights and stopped.
Show me any possible argument based on reason that the contents of a woman's uterus should be under the control of anyone but that woman and whomever she chooses to share that control with. Please. I've been looking for such an argument forever, and I would love it if you could break some new ground and make an argument that the anti-choice movement has not been able to make in their 5 decade history.
Not that I should bother responding to anyone who is so closed-minded and antagonistic as to use the term "anti-choice" (which is just as ridiculous as calling pro-choice advocates "anti-life", because pro-life advocates aren't against women's rights and pro-choice advocates aren't for murder), but here you go:
1. At some point, a fetus is accorded the rights and privileges we consider human life to have.
2. At birth is an unsatisfactory line to draw, because it means that the rights we recognize for the organism are based solely on its location.
3. Ideally, we would consider each case individually to determine if the fetus should be considered "life", but that isn't feasible. We need to codify something into law.
4. It is probably fair to say that at some point during pregnancy, the change happens. So where do we draw the line? No matter where we choose to put it, it will not be perfect as all pregnancies do not develop exactly the same, and the state we recognize as "life" may happen a day earlier in one pregnancy, a day later in another, etc.
5. False negatives are intolerable. It is better to prohibit any number of permissible (by whatever standard we decide for when "life" is recognized) abortions than it is to allow one unpermissible abortion.
6. Thus, the line must be very early so as to catch every possible case. That is not necessarily at conception, but drawing the line at conception has the advantage of being a good concrete point that offers no possible grey area.
It's not perfect. It may never convince a soul, and there's certainly plenty to disagree with or argue with there. But it is based on reason. And that's my point. There is a rational argument for either side here. We need to stop pretending like there isn't, and have a goddamn dialogue instead of a shouting match where our minds are shut to the possibility of ever considering an alternate point of view.
You still don't get it. This has nothing to do with whether or not you support abortion, this is about thinking rationally. You think that a fetus has no rights, fine. I don't have a problem with that. But what I do have a problem with is that you assume you're correct on something which is a matter of opinion (not fact), then use that to justify the rest of your reasoning such as "you can't grant rights to a fetus without trampling the rights of mothers". A statement like that is begging the question, and is untenable. That is why you lose: because you're ignoring the logical fallacies of your arguments.
You're also making unfounded assumptions about my position. The fact that I'm calling out your poor argument doesn't mean that I disagree with your stance on abortion, it merely means I can see the flaws in your argument. I have, in fact, deliberately not stated my opinions because this isn't about my opinion or your opinion: this is about how for some ungodly reason, people lose the capacity for logic and reason when abortion is under discussion. And I have a huge problem with that.
Too bad. The entire argument hinges upon the mischaracterization of a fetus as a "person" for the purposes of law. It's the single reason this is not an argument between two equally valid points of view. What you should be tired of is that the anti-abortion forces are trying to create rights and persons where they can not exist.
Classic logical fallacy. You cannot assume as a given that your position on the point of contention is the correct one, and consider the argument closed. As they say: you lose, good day sir.
A restaurant is not public property, and the public has no right to dictate what behavior it allows in its patrons (beyond the laws that apply everywhere, such as not murdering people). So no, smoking has never been everyone's business. It has been (and is) the business of the establishment's owner, nobody else's. Sadly, people have forgotten that they don't have the right to force others to run their establishments to suit them.
It won't take that long. We've been told for decades by a certain segment of the population that womens' reproductive organs are "everyones business".
I assume that this bit is about abortion, in which case, I sigh mightily at yet another person who fails (or refuses) to understand the issues under discussion. NOBODY, apart from a few genuine nutjobs, thinks that it's everyone's business what women do with their bodies. What some people do believe, however, is that an unborn child has certain rights, and that its mothers rights do not win in that conflict (to use the old and worn-out saying, "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins."). The popular characterization of pro-life advocates as not believing women have the right to decide what to do with their body has about as much in common with reality as TV. There is a disagreement about what rights a fetus has, and whose rights should take precedence in case of conflict... not whether women have certain rights or not.
And pro-lifers are equally guilty of similar bullshit - I have tried to get it through the thick skulls of some people I know that nobody (a few nutjobs excepted) thinks that it's OK to murder babies, even if they are pro-choice. I'm sick and fucking tired of the mischaracterization of the debate by both sides. It's shameful.
You really need to work on your reading comprehension, buddy. The submitter said what he was already planning to do, but also said he wants to do more. It's not like he isn't open to the possibility of more hands-on training days, or whatever else it takes for a smooth handoff.
That's actually not true. I live in Appleton, WI (which I would classify as a small city), and Verizon rolled out LTE here about 3 months ago. It doesn't diminish the rest of your point, but LTE is more widespread in the US than one might expect.
The summary was taken practically verbatim from the first paragraph of the article. Slashdot has nothing to do with that reference. I didn't say you commented on the wrong story, but this has absolutely nothing to do with Wired beyond your having dragged Wired into the discussion.
Perhaps you need to work on your comprehension? The source is the Chronicle of Higher Education, not Wired. Wired gets a passing mention because they gave this guy an award. But they have nothing to do with the article beyond that.
I watched one of the videos on the linked site, and he doesn't seem to be making any pretense to be teaching anything other than stage combat. So I don't think that this guy is some deluded sap who thinks that lightsaber fighting is a real skill or anything.
I haven't used those, so I don't have a great frame of reference... but I certainly have never had any problems hearing people while on the phone, nor them me. The smartphones I've used are a Motorola Droid (old personal), Droid 2 Global (work-issued), and Samsung Galaxy Nexus (new personal). Then again, your use case may differ significantly from mine. I primarily talk to people while at home or at work, so there's no background noise (which would no doubt make it harder for people to hear you).
What smartphones have you used, and what constitutes "decent function"? Because I have never been disappointed in the telephone part of any of my smartphones.
It is quite possible to prove a negative, contrary to popular belief. There are several proofs we did in my college math classes that proved that something is impossible.
If we're talking about the physical world as opposed to an abstract concept, it's considerably more difficult (to put it mildly) to disprove all cases, because we don't have perfect knowledge of the rules. However, one can prove that, under the rules we know to be true so far, something is impossible. That's close enough to truly impossible as makes no practical difference, because it's foolishness to waste time pursuing such things just in case we didn't know all the rules that were in play.
Slashdot Mirror
TFA mentions that they have a Kickstarter project going to build a new arena (made out of tougher materials so they can allow higher-powered weapons while still keeping spectators safe), if anyone wants to kick in a few bucks. Linky.
Apple is doing nothing of the sort. Making your working conditions (or your business partner's) slightly better is a PR move, not a real attempt at change. I'm under no illusions that Apple is the only company doing that (and I never said they were, despite you and someone else both reading that into my words)... but they are making no real attempt to solve the problem, either.
Why do you assume I'm only upset that Apple is doing it? I provided an example; I in no way said that the problem was limited to them.
Ultimately, it shouldn't be up to Apple, Samsung, Google or the consumers to protect the people of China.
That's true enough, but neither does it absolve those parties of responsibility. Nothing is stopping Apple from refraining from using business partners where workers are treated poorly, even if that means not doing business in China.
What the hell did I just watch?
My understanding of US trademark law, at least (and I have no idea if the laws applicable here are the same), is that you are not forced to defend the trademark or lose it if it isn't an infringing use of your trademark. Since "The Hobbit" is the name of a book (and now a movie), having a bar named the same thing would not be an infringement, and anyone suing over it wouldn't be "forced to by the law", they'd just be dicks.
Yeah, but on the other hand, imagine if you die between the switch to standard time and the switch back to DST - you get a free hour in that case! The solution, clearly, is to commit suicide during the winter to guarantee that you will be able to get this free hour of sweet sweet life.
It is a fact that fetuses have no rights. That's not my opinion.
No. That's like arguing, prior to the abolition of slavery, that it is a fact that slaves have no rights because they had previously been accorded none. Our country is founded on the philosophy of natural rights, and the fact that we may not have heretofore recognized some right does not mean it doesn't exist. This is a poor argument that should be abundantly clear is invalid based on the fact that we have, multiple times in our history, collectively realized that we were violating someone's rights and stopped.
Show me any possible argument based on reason that the contents of a woman's uterus should be under the control of anyone but that woman and whomever she chooses to share that control with. Please. I've been looking for such an argument forever, and I would love it if you could break some new ground and make an argument that the anti-choice movement has not been able to make in their 5 decade history.
Not that I should bother responding to anyone who is so closed-minded and antagonistic as to use the term "anti-choice" (which is just as ridiculous as calling pro-choice advocates "anti-life", because pro-life advocates aren't against women's rights and pro-choice advocates aren't for murder), but here you go:
It's not perfect. It may never convince a soul, and there's certainly plenty to disagree with or argue with there. But it is based on reason. And that's my point. There is a rational argument for either side here. We need to stop pretending like there isn't, and have a goddamn dialogue instead of a shouting match where our minds are shut to the possibility of ever considering an alternate point of view.
You still don't get it. This has nothing to do with whether or not you support abortion, this is about thinking rationally. You think that a fetus has no rights, fine. I don't have a problem with that. But what I do have a problem with is that you assume you're correct on something which is a matter of opinion (not fact), then use that to justify the rest of your reasoning such as "you can't grant rights to a fetus without trampling the rights of mothers". A statement like that is begging the question, and is untenable. That is why you lose: because you're ignoring the logical fallacies of your arguments.
You're also making unfounded assumptions about my position. The fact that I'm calling out your poor argument doesn't mean that I disagree with your stance on abortion, it merely means I can see the flaws in your argument. I have, in fact, deliberately not stated my opinions because this isn't about my opinion or your opinion: this is about how for some ungodly reason, people lose the capacity for logic and reason when abortion is under discussion. And I have a huge problem with that.
Too bad. The entire argument hinges upon the mischaracterization of a fetus as a "person" for the purposes of law. It's the single reason this is not an argument between two equally valid points of view. What you should be tired of is that the anti-abortion forces are trying to create rights and persons where they can not exist.
Classic logical fallacy. You cannot assume as a given that your position on the point of contention is the correct one, and consider the argument closed. As they say: you lose, good day sir.
A restaurant is not public property, and the public has no right to dictate what behavior it allows in its patrons (beyond the laws that apply everywhere, such as not murdering people). So no, smoking has never been everyone's business. It has been (and is) the business of the establishment's owner, nobody else's. Sadly, people have forgotten that they don't have the right to force others to run their establishments to suit them.
It won't take that long. We've been told for decades by a certain segment of the population that womens' reproductive organs are "everyones business".
I assume that this bit is about abortion, in which case, I sigh mightily at yet another person who fails (or refuses) to understand the issues under discussion. NOBODY, apart from a few genuine nutjobs, thinks that it's everyone's business what women do with their bodies. What some people do believe, however, is that an unborn child has certain rights, and that its mothers rights do not win in that conflict (to use the old and worn-out saying, "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins."). The popular characterization of pro-life advocates as not believing women have the right to decide what to do with their body has about as much in common with reality as TV. There is a disagreement about what rights a fetus has, and whose rights should take precedence in case of conflict... not whether women have certain rights or not.
And pro-lifers are equally guilty of similar bullshit - I have tried to get it through the thick skulls of some people I know that nobody (a few nutjobs excepted) thinks that it's OK to murder babies, even if they are pro-choice. I'm sick and fucking tired of the mischaracterization of the debate by both sides. It's shameful.
That distinction doesn't exist in the broader use of the English language, and it doesn't freaking matter. It was clear to everyone what was meant.
You really need to work on your reading comprehension, buddy. The submitter said what he was already planning to do, but also said he wants to do more. It's not like he isn't open to the possibility of more hands-on training days, or whatever else it takes for a smooth handoff.
Yep. The effects were good, but the plot was terrible.
Heh, small world! I never would've imagined that I'd bump into a non-resident who frequently visits my locale.
Even in the US it's only in the large cities...
That's actually not true. I live in Appleton, WI (which I would classify as a small city), and Verizon rolled out LTE here about 3 months ago. It doesn't diminish the rest of your point, but LTE is more widespread in the US than one might expect.
The summary was taken practically verbatim from the first paragraph of the article. Slashdot has nothing to do with that reference. I didn't say you commented on the wrong story, but this has absolutely nothing to do with Wired beyond your having dragged Wired into the discussion.
Perhaps you need to work on your comprehension? The source is the Chronicle of Higher Education, not Wired. Wired gets a passing mention because they gave this guy an award. But they have nothing to do with the article beyond that.
I watched one of the videos on the linked site, and he doesn't seem to be making any pretense to be teaching anything other than stage combat. So I don't think that this guy is some deluded sap who thinks that lightsaber fighting is a real skill or anything.
I haven't used those, so I don't have a great frame of reference... but I certainly have never had any problems hearing people while on the phone, nor them me. The smartphones I've used are a Motorola Droid (old personal), Droid 2 Global (work-issued), and Samsung Galaxy Nexus (new personal). Then again, your use case may differ significantly from mine. I primarily talk to people while at home or at work, so there's no background noise (which would no doubt make it harder for people to hear you).
What smartphones have you used, and what constitutes "decent function"? Because I have never been disappointed in the telephone part of any of my smartphones.
It is quite possible to prove a negative, contrary to popular belief. There are several proofs we did in my college math classes that proved that something is impossible.
If we're talking about the physical world as opposed to an abstract concept, it's considerably more difficult (to put it mildly) to disprove all cases, because we don't have perfect knowledge of the rules. However, one can prove that, under the rules we know to be true so far, something is impossible. That's close enough to truly impossible as makes no practical difference, because it's foolishness to waste time pursuing such things just in case we didn't know all the rules that were in play.
the business-blind sysadmin geek has never been up for the higher reaches of IT, and never will be.
Of course, that person probably doesn't want to be in those positions either. So I don't think what you say is a real weakness.
Excellent non sequitur, good sir.