Simple, not causing disruption while people change the programming language (or start programming). If I had to wait for all browsers to support it, might as well not change at all. For change to happen needs to exist critical mass, Google just removed that from the equation.
What about people with other health conditions who cannot tolerate the vaccine?
This is the only pertinent question I can see because the answer to it is quite informative.
Here it goes: well, like someone said, vaccination is mandatory for school, etc, so they would find out sooner or later. But even so, there are tests to find out allergies/intolerance that cause just "harm" enough (but not enough to put someone at risk or even discomfort) to identify such intolerance/allergy.
And now it comes: the person that's not vaccinate will have the health buffer given by those vaccinated, hugely reducing the risk of him getting sick from that specific disease. So that person that doesn't tolerate well the inoculation is safer because others took the vaccine.
And I suspect that the cases your talking about (the serious ones) were from measles vaccinations... in the 1980's.
But if you're talking, for example, of the people with allergy to eggs (not intolerance, ALLERGY) and the flu vaccine, well, people with such allergy (again, people with intolerance to egg are fine!) can be inoculated anyway, but with precautions (it's the severity of the reactions that dictate the precautions).
So, to sum it up: because there are enough people vaccinated it creates a buffer between the vectors (people with the disease) and non inoculated people. More than that, it stops the spreading from happening completely, and in some cases it even eradicates the disease completely (not the case with flu because it mutates fast enough and the vaccines work on strands of the virus).
While you don't explicitly try to extend your control beyond your jurisdiction[...]
It's neither explicitly nor implicitly, it's a consequence, and that consequence it's a choice made entirely by the service providers so they don't have to implement different policies (it's the easiest way out like you said).
But that also causes a problem because sooner or later that "common" policy will clash between different jurisdictions. I see a risk of that happening between US and EU, since we do have privacy protection laws, but facebook being a US company has to comply to the the x,y,z ACTs regarding data, and that can conflict between them.
And again we come back to what I said before, it's just making the service providers comply to our legislation inside our borders, regarding our rights and laws and nothing else.
No, we're not megalomaniac like the U.S. and we do know where our jurisdiction ends (basically at our borders).
With that said, we do it for our own rights, inside our borders and under our legal jurisdiction.
Sorry to disappoint you.
Note: And saying "don't use it if you don't agree with their policy" doesn't cut it. If it's infringing in privacy rights, it'll still be infringing even if I don't use the service, as long as the service is available for us with that policy.
While you were describing the "run in circles around us" people I was "wow, that's me". Not to brag, mind you, I've spent most my life trying to be inconspicuous but to no avail really (things just comes natural to me and it's not easy when there's so much hatred for "smart asses"). Althou I did score way high in IQ tests when I was a boy, as did my little brother years after, I am able to harness my potential without trying (yeah, I'm lazy and I still show off even when I try hard not to). The only difference between me and my brother was my teacher. Her daughter was a psychologist and, from what my mom tells me, my teacher confided with her daughter regarding the difficulty she had handling me (I was a little devil). For all purposes I was seen as hyperactive... Until her daughter started giving her advice, telling her to give me specific homework to stimulate me. In 3 months I went from her worst student to her most successful one. I caught up with everyone else in class and surpassed them. All thanks to my teacher and her daughter.
Even now, all my success in life I have to thank them, who trained my capacities. They had me do memory exercises, creativity exercises, discipline myself... I can correlate things that to most seems impossible and almost all the time they are correct. So my IQ might be a factor or may not (mind you, I mentioned my little brother has having roughly the same scored IQ as I, but he lacks the capacities I have today and demonstrated to have since I was in 1st grade), but what I do know is that my training while a child, in those 4 years with that teacher, were without a doubt the reason why I am able to perform so well even today (without or without those capacities to start with).
On the other hand, if you're really that good, just take some vacations and make yourself notice (or rather, your absence). Took 3 weeks in a row a couple of years ago, and my boss plead not to take so many days again.
Oh, and no, I'm not a coder, but what he wrote was quite familiar.
1) People are concerned about several things, not only (or not at all) data retention/online privacy, but with social and economical problems (and a more complete political "project"... I do identify with PP concerns, but I have more topics of concern then the ones that PP has, and I give more importance to those concerns on my daily life... I wouldn't just cast my vote because I agree with some of the points a party makes, I would need to identify with the more importante topics, and weight the ones I disagree against what I find acceptable versus the ones I do agree).
2) In times of crisis the votes tend to be more right winged (SWE wasn't an exception).
3) Usually the European Election is used by the voters to punish the governing party in their countries.
4) And it's not only SWE. Most countries have their own "PP", in a way or another. One of those parties might endorse lower taxes, another might go against the CAP (Common Agricultural Policy), etc.. The point is, those parties aren't suppose to be taken seriously (serious in a sense that none expects they'll have an huge representation), and the ones who vote for them usually know that. People usually vote for them so there's a lobbying party for those subjects, or just to "annoy" the more "tradicional" parties, or lack of a choice that they identify with.
Most EU countries do take (the possibility of) governmental spying serious. It's in terms of perception that things differ. I can say that at least in one of the countries where the system is being put in place is actually quite safe (I work for one ISP that's rolling out a data retention system to abide the new legislation). In terms of legislation, no customer data can be cross referenced during the investigation phase (initial phase, until there's enough evidence for an indictment, and for an investigation to take place, to access the data, it needs court approval), so that protects the identity of whoever data was requested.
Well, since we're talking about EU, that's not completely true.
Copyright, in some of the state members, falls under civil law (not without controversy). Going further more, copyright infrigement, in Portugal for example, is considered a public crime (unless it has been authorized by the authors, and in that case wouldn't be copyright infringement anyway), so there's no need for the copyright holder to press charges or sue (and can't even settle for an agreement for that matter).
Even in the name given to it there's some pointers: you call it copyright, in EU it's commonly refered to Authors Rights.
Not that the content of your post has anything to do with Frank Herberts Dune, but he does imply that religion is the means to pass a message along generations... to manipulate a society. e.g: The Bene Gesserit and Missionaria Protectiva, that would take the local religions and morph it a bit (or even create a new one) so it would encompass with their plans.
I know, that's why I said the only way to be a bit ironic is if you take the phrase literally. Also that's why I also wrote "then what you try to imply", where "imply" being that taking the "built" literally would refer to the ID belief.
Not in a very sarcastic mood today, except for my own (kidneys stones hurting like hell... wish they would be diamonds at least that stone would be worth my pains).
Ah man.... You shot yourself in the foot there. There's a big difference between Cuba and CoS... Well, there's one similarity... they start with the letter "C". And pretty much ends there as well.
Back on topic: Cuba isn't a good example. You're born cuban, but your not born scientologist. You have no choice but to leave Cuba if you hate Castro and his policy. You have the choice not to join CoS. In fact, you prolly will be an adult by the time you approach CoS, whilst you are a fetus and then a baby when you meet Fidels Cuba if your born there. See the difference?
I recon that the testimonies will be biased, but hey, so are snitchers, and how many investigations started with that?
One thing is for granted: if all testimonies have a common ground, a place where all the testimonies are coherent between each other and the people giving them are unrelated, then no matter how biased one can be what they are saying most times then not are true (hey, the reverse works to play two or more people that alibi themselfs with each others... get someone to break coherance and play the rest with it... so I'm not pulling rabbits out of my hat).
I don't find it a bit ironic, unless if taken literally. It says more about the era we live on then what you try to imply.
Pretty sure during the dark ages the cleric would say something along the lines "we humble god abiding people can grasp what god intended for us to grasp when He made us".
And if we ever come to a time were we can materialize stuff out of thin air (well.... not really out of thin air, but for now it will do) we prolly will be saying "zip blog zip bing bing blah click click clack pling", that rufly translated will be something like "oh shit, I'm so happy we have this machines, or else we would have to devise a way to open those ancient things called bottles just to be able to drink this soda... We surely can only grasp what we were taught to understand".
I did reread (to see if there was something missing), and still fail to see how "One man's propaganda is another man's truth." and Moores example as anything to do with the case. Sure, you can always spin everything and have a great comeback talking about the first amendment and freedom of speech, but I still fail to see how can that have anything to do with copyright infringement/plagiarism. I fail to see how, on your first comment that I replied to, putting more of their own work would make it less of a copyright infringement or plagiarism (by your own words: "But I think that's because it's reproducing too much of the copy written material and not putting in enough of their own."). So, by that logic, I would be ok if I stripped the narrations, and made a 2 hours movie with only 4 minutes of copyrighted material (still without making any reference to the authors of said copyright material)? Is that enough material? Would it then be considered freedom for you? You have so many examples of musicians that got sued for not having permission from the copyright holders to use some samples. Is that an attack on whos freedom?
It's a pain that you can't edit/. posts and remove something you wrote that might contradict what you write now isn't it? (the part about the problem being that they might not have enough of their own work in there, without saying, you implied that it would be ok if they had enough work on top of the copyrighted work). And I didn't replied to the original/. conversation, I replied to you... I have no problem with what he said. For all I know he could be refering to this specific case (where it wasn't chop off and rearrange... not even rearrange, they used several minutes of someone elses animation, without the sound, and placed their own narration). And you did pointed some valid arguments that would be valid in most cases... just not in this one. What I commented was the comparison made between the topic and the example. Not only that, but the remark you made that it seems it would be ok for you if they had more work on top of the copyrighted material, the copyright wouldn't matter. It wouldn't matter, it still would be copyright material used without a reference to the original author, and without permission. And I'm no expert or lawyer, but fair use doesn't apply for plagiarism (at least), does it?
Oh, and it's actually "Argumentum ad hominem" (in english is called "fallacy"), and actually what I did is called "sarcasm". The first implies a flawed logic, where the second it's exaggeration and logic-linguistic distortion. The difference is basically in content and form. It would mean that my reply was intended to change the subject, which we see we're still on the subject (except for this part, but this isn't the whole reply, is it now?). But then again, since you brought that up, you might look up what it means, and find out that it applies to your comments, since one of the things it's used for is to take two separate and unrelated premises, and end with a faulty logic conclusion (invalid conclusion in syllogistic logic). Ofc it doesn't justify my tone, but I couldn't care less.
Depends... Did the viewers understood it was taken from two different footages? You since to, I certainly did, and so did the OP to whom I replied. So yes, it is raw material as in no external factors were introduced to that scene. Let me ask this, if you only saw that footage, and playing on another tv side by side was the same scene from the original one, would you see the difference? No? There you have it. And was Michael Moore film done only with that footage, but changing it's meaning? See the difference between the topic and the example given? If you don't, you have bigger problems then that.
The big difference here isn't some cut&pasted scenes. The Discovery Institute didn't cut&pasted the scenes... they striped the film of Harvards narrations and copyright info, and placed instead their own narrations, with no reference to the original author. So, for the Bowling for Columbine example to be comparable, Michael Moore would have to: have done the entire film on top of the original footage (all of the film, nothing more, nothing less of), and dub Charlton Heston voice so the content of it would be completely different from what Charlton Heston originally said.
P.S. - I tought I wouldn't need to explain all this in my original comment... Tought I wouldn't have to explain everything like done to little kids... I was wrong.
Are you this dumb? Seriously, are you? Or just serves your purpose? You forgot to mention that Michael Moore tried to get Charlton Heston to comment on that, and he declined (as shown on Bowling for Columbine).... Not to mention that they didn't insert any narration to what was said by Charlton Heston, so it was the raw material that was shown.
You muppets get dumber by the second if you truly believe that going from mentaly challenged propaganda to half truths takes you anywhere.
And that's a choice because?! Not to mention that you just pointed out that that's tying (and illegal or considered anti-competitive and so it's regulated). Since there's no unlocked version of iPhone I don't have that choice.
Also if I do buy an iPhone and want to change to another carrier I can't (not while being able to use _my_ phone), ence going against the rights given to me as EU customer. If not by further evidence, the fact that I have the right to change carrier and take the number with me (number portability) should be enough to prove that right. If not, then maybe the fact that carriers have, by law, to give you the unlock code (for a fee) in most countries that didn't legislate against locked phones.
Ofc, you'll still have to pay a compensation for ending the contract before time since they won't sell it without it (never more then the remaining monthly plan). But hey, it's an open market, so as soon as France has the unlocked versions I can always buy one (althou more expensive) and use it anywhere in EU. The claim that the phone is being sold bellow market price because there's a plan attached will fall to earth then. If there's no hardware change, many of the iPhones unlocked right now will have legit firmware running, Apple will have to eat its hat for that. Still, buying an unlocked iPhone in France, no matter the price increase, beats the price charged for the iPhone+24 months plan.
(I wonder how the iPhone will be seen in countries like Belgium or Finland since they don't even allow locked phones in their market... except for 3G equipment in Finland).
Not really... If they are sued for anti-competitive practices that means there are reasons to back that claim.
Phones being exclusive to a carrier isn't nothing new. What's new is that I don't have the choice to pay a fee to unlock my phone (before or after the contract expires) and move to another operator. Even if I want to end the contract before its end date, pay the remaining monthly fees, I can't use _my_ phone in another carrier. No matter how much garbage Apple sticks in their EULA (or whatever is they have), it doesn't mean jack if it goes against the law in here (and in france it even goes against the law if they don't have an unlock version in the market), so yeah, it is _my_ phone and I'm free to do whatever I want. The only thing I cannot do is end the contract with the carrier (for the service plan, not the iPhone) thinking I won't have to pay the remaining time (I was the one who ended the contract).... that is, except if Vodafone wins the claim, and by that rendering the contract useless.
If that starts to be the norm pretty much goes against everything that was legislated and that the regulator entities try to have. First iPhone, then Nokia, Motorola, Siemens and soon I'll have to buy a new phone every time I change carrier. Those fees are there for a reason, so I can change carriers (pretty much the same logic behind phone number portability: I want to change operator, then I can either pay the fee and move the number with me, or change number). Also for a new mobile carrier (or a virtual one operating on top of a existing one) they would have enormous difficulties getting terminals for their business (ence the competitive laws... they are not only to protect the customers, but also to encourage new, competitive, companies into the market, althou in the end it does give more options to the customer with in this last cenario).
You're right. But only if you take NHS out of context. NHS pays for (almost) _everything_ health related. It goes from primary care to dentistry (not to mention that is one of the top 3 employers in the world... thats alot of wages).
Most countries with healthcare policies don't go as far, they pay the basic primary care, some in-patient care and only some cases to long-term healthcare (usualy only on psychiatric hospitals). Some drugs are paid either partialy of in full by the state, but not many (usualy most drugs aren't, they are just tax deductible).
So, to compare NHS expenses to any other healthcare system is going into extremes. Pretty much like talking about democratic states and then give Muammar al-Gaddafis Libia as an example (thats how extreme is comparing NHS to a "normal" healthcare system).
I have to disagree with you about the raising taxes and minimizing consumption. We (soon will) have one of the highest energy taxes here in Portugal, not to mention that since last July there's a new building law that mandates the constructors to equip the buildings with solar panels (for large building areas in the first stage, and in May 2008 for all new buildings), wich makes the houses cost around 5k to 7k euros average. We also have the 4th biggest wind energy company since EDP bought Horizon Wind Energy last July, and we've one of the most advanced wave power generators (althou only a pilot, but 3 more are being constructed or in final project phase, and till 2010 more will be in place if it proves to be efficient).
Limitations, within reason, serve in fact to promote development... if you limit power consumption but still give some manuvering margin, companies will see a market there to sell better energy efficient fridges/washing machines/whatever. And with the need to find better energy efficient machines, people will buy then even if it costs a little more since in the long run it's worth it (and the companies that sell them will have the confidence they need to invest more in R&D: money coming in their pockets).
Ofc wind energy and wave power generators aren't cost effective at the moment, but if you can use the solar panels to heat the water, to use that little energy to keep the house warm, or even tap it into the electric grid for extra energy, it's worth it (and taking the Portuguese example, it's not a single house doing it... in May 2008 every new building will have to have it). With the panels being sold for ALL the new buildings (houses, schools, depots, everything), the companies will start to sell loads... more money coming in, and more money for R&D... the ones that can make more efficient and cheap solar panels will win an edge over the rest.
Another thing that was legislated as well, new building will now be rated for their energy consumption/efficiency. So a house with proper thermal shielding, wide double windows (so that more light can come in during the day, also will make it warmer and less electric lights will be on during the day), and alot of other things, will make a house A grade in terms of power consumption ratings. Banks will encourage people to buy better graded ones by giving better loan conditions, lower interest rates, etc. And while doing that, the taxes on energy are being raised never the less. What will happen is that people will run for the houses that give better loan conditions without taking into account the energy rating on them (in a first phase), but when it starts to be obvious the advantages, not only on the loan but in power consumption in general, more and more will search for better rating houses when looking for an house (it happened with domestic electronics such as fridges/dish washers/washing machines/etc when they had to put a power consumption rating sticker on them), constructors will have to take that into account and build houses that overall have a lower power consumption rating.
That, at least as I can see, is progress. By raising taxes within reasonable levels, it creates a need to search for better equipment that can save people some money in the long run, and by doing that encourages R&D for that "new" market.
But that might not work for US... It's a cultural thing. Take a look at your cars in general. There's a cult around SUV's and large engine cars in US, when in Europe our cars tend to have engines less powerful (or so it might look to you), better milages/kilometers per galon/litre (also we impose some engine limitations and gas emitions on the cars sold here, even the ones shared between US and EU markets) and we impose higher fuel taxes then you (yes, in Europe our taxes in general are higher then yours, althou the majority of US public opinion thinks the US has higher taxes then the rest). Results? Well, we have one excelent train grid in Europe, that can takes us everywhere, excelent public trans
.... scientists discovered that by removing all legs to a spider it becomes deaf. The reason behind this is because the spider jumped when asked until all legs were removed, and from there it stop responding to the scientist jump commands.
Regarding the better house design... We have it here:P no, seriously, we now have consumption efficiency ratings for the houses (something like consumption efficiency rating in fridges, dish washers and so on... most EU should know what I'm talking about... and then again). So now the houses here are graded based in their power consumption potencial, like if a house has huge windows so more sun light comes thru, less necessity to have lights on during the day (and have proper shielding so it maintains thermal efficiency and doesn't let heat dissipate thru it), or if the walls have thermal shielding, and several other factors, a house can meet a "A" rating(highest in power/thermal efficiency). Also banks started to take into account those ratings, and it's easier to get a loan for houses with higher ratings, and also theres a discount on the interest charged by the bank for those houses loan (so cheaper loans, and easier to get/to get approved). So it's not something unheard:)
No mate, it is possible to prove a negative if a method to prove his counter exists. Lets see an example: I have methods to determine what metals exists in a given object. With the same method I can prove that, lets say, zinc doesn't exist in an object. The problem with religion is that there's no evidence that it exists, and the thing you can't ever prove in science is that something doesn't exist because it has some degree of uncertainty related to what you know/can observe/can extrapolate. You would have to know everything there is to know to prove that something doesn't exist.
So: a negative can be proven if you can provide a method to prove it's counter. Non existance can't be proved unless you have all the knowledge in the universe, and therefore your 100% sure it doesn't exist (but you can say that given the facts provided there's little chance for it to exist).
And with that statement you just firmly stated that you clearly don't understand jack. The ones that make a statement without any (clear) evidence of their believe must prove their point (Galileu, Hawkins, etc).
Slashdot Mirror
Simple, not causing disruption while people change the programming language (or start programming). If I had to wait for all browsers to support it, might as well not change at all. For change to happen needs to exist critical mass, Google just removed that from the equation.
What about people with other health conditions who cannot tolerate the vaccine?
This is the only pertinent question I can see because the answer to it is quite informative. Here it goes: well, like someone said, vaccination is mandatory for school, etc, so they would find out sooner or later. But even so, there are tests to find out allergies/intolerance that cause just "harm" enough (but not enough to put someone at risk or even discomfort) to identify such intolerance/allergy. And now it comes: the person that's not vaccinate will have the health buffer given by those vaccinated, hugely reducing the risk of him getting sick from that specific disease. So that person that doesn't tolerate well the inoculation is safer because others took the vaccine. And I suspect that the cases your talking about (the serious ones) were from measles vaccinations... in the 1980's. But if you're talking, for example, of the people with allergy to eggs (not intolerance, ALLERGY) and the flu vaccine, well, people with such allergy (again, people with intolerance to egg are fine!) can be inoculated anyway, but with precautions (it's the severity of the reactions that dictate the precautions). So, to sum it up: because there are enough people vaccinated it creates a buffer between the vectors (people with the disease) and non inoculated people. More than that, it stops the spreading from happening completely, and in some cases it even eradicates the disease completely (not the case with flu because it mutates fast enough and the vaccines work on strands of the virus).
While you don't explicitly try to extend your control beyond your jurisdiction[...]
It's neither explicitly nor implicitly, it's a consequence, and that consequence it's a choice made entirely by the service providers so they don't have to implement different policies (it's the easiest way out like you said).
But that also causes a problem because sooner or later that "common" policy will clash between different jurisdictions. I see a risk of that happening between US and EU, since we do have privacy protection laws, but facebook being a US company has to comply to the the x,y,z ACTs regarding data, and that can conflict between them.
And again we come back to what I said before, it's just making the service providers comply to our legislation inside our borders, regarding our rights and laws and nothing else.
With that said, we do it for our own rights, inside our borders and under our legal jurisdiction.
Sorry to disappoint you.
Note: And saying "don't use it if you don't agree with their policy" doesn't cut it. If it's infringing in privacy rights, it'll still be infringing even if I don't use the service, as long as the service is available for us with that policy.
While you were describing the "run in circles around us" people I was "wow, that's me". Not to brag, mind you, I've spent most my life trying to be inconspicuous but to no avail really (things just comes natural to me and it's not easy when there's so much hatred for "smart asses"). Althou I did score way high in IQ tests when I was a boy, as did my little brother years after, I am able to harness my potential without trying (yeah, I'm lazy and I still show off even when I try hard not to). The only difference between me and my brother was my teacher. Her daughter was a psychologist and, from what my mom tells me, my teacher confided with her daughter regarding the difficulty she had handling me (I was a little devil). For all purposes I was seen as hyperactive... Until her daughter started giving her advice, telling her to give me specific homework to stimulate me. In 3 months I went from her worst student to her most successful one. I caught up with everyone else in class and surpassed them. All thanks to my teacher and her daughter.
Even now, all my success in life I have to thank them, who trained my capacities. They had me do memory exercises, creativity exercises, discipline myself... I can correlate things that to most seems impossible and almost all the time they are correct. So my IQ might be a factor or may not (mind you, I mentioned my little brother has having roughly the same scored IQ as I, but he lacks the capacities I have today and demonstrated to have since I was in 1st grade), but what I do know is that my training while a child, in those 4 years with that teacher, were without a doubt the reason why I am able to perform so well even today (without or without those capacities to start with).
On the other hand, if you're really that good, just take some vacations and make yourself notice (or rather, your absence). Took 3 weeks in a row a couple of years ago, and my boss plead not to take so many days again.
Oh, and no, I'm not a coder, but what he wrote was quite familiar.
It's quite simple (at least from my PoV):
1) People are concerned about several things, not only (or not at all) data retention/online privacy, but with social and economical problems (and a more complete political "project"... I do identify with PP concerns, but I have more topics of concern then the ones that PP has, and I give more importance to those concerns on my daily life... I wouldn't just cast my vote because I agree with some of the points a party makes, I would need to identify with the more importante topics, and weight the ones I disagree against what I find acceptable versus the ones I do agree).
2) In times of crisis the votes tend to be more right winged (SWE wasn't an exception).
3) Usually the European Election is used by the voters to punish the governing party in their countries.
4) And it's not only SWE. Most countries have their own "PP", in a way or another. One of those parties might endorse lower taxes, another might go against the CAP (Common Agricultural Policy), etc.. The point is, those parties aren't suppose to be taken seriously (serious in a sense that none expects they'll have an huge representation), and the ones who vote for them usually know that. People usually vote for them so there's a lobbying party for those subjects, or just to "annoy" the more "tradicional" parties, or lack of a choice that they identify with.
Most EU countries do take (the possibility of) governmental spying serious. It's in terms of perception that things differ. I can say that at least in one of the countries where the system is being put in place is actually quite safe (I work for one ISP that's rolling out a data retention system to abide the new legislation). In terms of legislation, no customer data can be cross referenced during the investigation phase (initial phase, until there's enough evidence for an indictment, and for an investigation to take place, to access the data, it needs court approval), so that protects the identity of whoever data was requested.
Well, since we're talking about EU, that's not completely true.
Copyright, in some of the state members, falls under civil law (not without controversy). Going further more, copyright infrigement, in Portugal for example, is considered a public crime (unless it has been authorized by the authors, and in that case wouldn't be copyright infringement anyway), so there's no need for the copyright holder to press charges or sue (and can't even settle for an agreement for that matter).
Even in the name given to it there's some pointers: you call it copyright, in EU it's commonly refered to Authors Rights.
According to TFA, you're missing about 400 million reasons on why it is better.
ahhh.... you're a Frank Herbert fan I see :P
Not that the content of your post has anything to do with Frank Herberts Dune, but he does imply that religion is the means to pass a message along generations... to manipulate a society.
e.g: The Bene Gesserit and Missionaria Protectiva, that would take the local religions and morph it a bit (or even create a new one) so it would encompass with their plans.
I know, that's why I said the only way to be a bit ironic is if you take the phrase literally. Also that's why I also wrote "then what you try to imply", where "imply" being that taking the "built" literally would refer to the ID belief.
Not in a very sarcastic mood today, except for my own (kidneys stones hurting like hell... wish they would be diamonds at least that stone would be worth my pains).
Ah man.... You shot yourself in the foot there. There's a big difference between Cuba and CoS... Well, there's one similarity... they start with the letter "C". And pretty much ends there as well.
Back on topic: Cuba isn't a good example. You're born cuban, but your not born scientologist. You have no choice but to leave Cuba if you hate Castro and his policy. You have the choice not to join CoS. In fact, you prolly will be an adult by the time you approach CoS, whilst you are a fetus and then a baby when you meet Fidels Cuba if your born there. See the difference?
I recon that the testimonies will be biased, but hey, so are snitchers, and how many investigations started with that?
One thing is for granted: if all testimonies have a common ground, a place where all the testimonies are coherent between each other and the people giving them are unrelated, then no matter how biased one can be what they are saying most times then not are true (hey, the reverse works to play two or more people that alibi themselfs with each others... get someone to break coherance and play the rest with it... so I'm not pulling rabbits out of my hat).
oh noes... you just proved einstein right.
I don't find it a bit ironic, unless if taken literally. It says more about the era we live on then what you try to imply. Pretty sure during the dark ages the cleric would say something along the lines "we humble god abiding people can grasp what god intended for us to grasp when He made us". And if we ever come to a time were we can materialize stuff out of thin air (well.... not really out of thin air, but for now it will do) we prolly will be saying "zip blog zip bing bing blah click click clack pling", that rufly translated will be something like "oh shit, I'm so happy we have this machines, or else we would have to devise a way to open those ancient things called bottles just to be able to drink this soda... We surely can only grasp what we were taught to understand".
I did reread (to see if there was something missing), and still fail to see how "One man's propaganda is another man's truth." and Moores example as anything to do with the case. Sure, you can always spin everything and have a great comeback talking about the first amendment and freedom of speech, but I still fail to see how can that have anything to do with copyright infringement/plagiarism. I fail to see how, on your first comment that I replied to, putting more of their own work would make it less of a copyright infringement or plagiarism (by your own words: "But I think that's because it's reproducing too much of the copy written material and not putting in enough of their own."). So, by that logic, I would be ok if I stripped the narrations, and made a 2 hours movie with only 4 minutes of copyrighted material (still without making any reference to the authors of said copyright material)? Is that enough material? Would it then be considered freedom for you? You have so many examples of musicians that got sued for not having permission from the copyright holders to use some samples. Is that an attack on whos freedom?
/. posts and remove something you wrote that might contradict what you write now isn't it? (the part about the problem being that they might not have enough of their own work in there, without saying, you implied that it would be ok if they had enough work on top of the copyrighted work). /. conversation, I replied to you... I have no problem with what he said. For all I know he could be refering to this specific case (where it wasn't chop off and rearrange... not even rearrange, they used several minutes of someone elses animation, without the sound, and placed their own narration). And you did pointed some valid arguments that would be valid in most cases... just not in this one. What I commented was the comparison made between the topic and the example. Not only that, but the remark you made that it seems it would be ok for you if they had more work on top of the copyrighted material, the copyright wouldn't matter. It wouldn't matter, it still would be copyright material used without a reference to the original author, and without permission. And I'm no expert or lawyer, but fair use doesn't apply for plagiarism (at least), does it?
It's a pain that you can't edit
And I didn't replied to the original
Oh, and it's actually "Argumentum ad hominem" (in english is called "fallacy"), and actually what I did is called "sarcasm". The first implies a flawed logic, where the second it's exaggeration and logic-linguistic distortion. The difference is basically in content and form. It would mean that my reply was intended to change the subject, which we see we're still on the subject (except for this part, but this isn't the whole reply, is it now?). But then again, since you brought that up, you might look up what it means, and find out that it applies to your comments, since one of the things it's used for is to take two separate and unrelated premises, and end with a faulty logic conclusion (invalid conclusion in syllogistic logic). Ofc it doesn't justify my tone, but I couldn't care less.
Depends... Did the viewers understood it was taken from two different footages? You since to, I certainly did, and so did the OP to whom I replied. So yes, it is raw material as in no external factors were introduced to that scene. Let me ask this, if you only saw that footage, and playing on another tv side by side was the same scene from the original one, would you see the difference? No? There you have it. And was Michael Moore film done only with that footage, but changing it's meaning? See the difference between the topic and the example given? If you don't, you have bigger problems then that.
The big difference here isn't some cut&pasted scenes. The Discovery Institute didn't cut&pasted the scenes... they striped the film of Harvards narrations and copyright info, and placed instead their own narrations, with no reference to the original author. So, for the Bowling for Columbine example to be comparable, Michael Moore would have to: have done the entire film on top of the original footage (all of the film, nothing more, nothing less of), and dub Charlton Heston voice so the content of it would be completely different from what Charlton Heston originally said.
P.S. - I tought I wouldn't need to explain all this in my original comment... Tought I wouldn't have to explain everything like done to little kids... I was wrong.
Are you this dumb? Seriously, are you? Or just serves your purpose? You forgot to mention that Michael Moore tried to get Charlton Heston to comment on that, and he declined (as shown on Bowling for Columbine).... Not to mention that they didn't insert any narration to what was said by Charlton Heston, so it was the raw material that was shown.
You muppets get dumber by the second if you truly believe that going from mentaly challenged propaganda to half truths takes you anywhere.
And that's a choice because?! Not to mention that you just pointed out that that's tying (and illegal or considered anti-competitive and so it's regulated). Since there's no unlocked version of iPhone I don't have that choice.
Also if I do buy an iPhone and want to change to another carrier I can't (not while being able to use _my_ phone), ence going against the rights given to me as EU customer. If not by further evidence, the fact that I have the right to change carrier and take the number with me (number portability) should be enough to prove that right. If not, then maybe the fact that carriers have, by law, to give you the unlock code (for a fee) in most countries that didn't legislate against locked phones.
Ofc, you'll still have to pay a compensation for ending the contract before time since they won't sell it without it (never more then the remaining monthly plan). But hey, it's an open market, so as soon as France has the unlocked versions I can always buy one (althou more expensive) and use it anywhere in EU.
The claim that the phone is being sold bellow market price because there's a plan attached will fall to earth then. If there's no hardware change, many of the iPhones unlocked right now will have legit firmware running, Apple will have to eat its hat for that. Still, buying an unlocked iPhone in France, no matter the price increase, beats the price charged for the iPhone+24 months plan.
(I wonder how the iPhone will be seen in countries like Belgium or Finland since they don't even allow locked phones in their market... except for 3G equipment in Finland).
Not really... If they are sued for anti-competitive practices that means there are reasons to back that claim. Phones being exclusive to a carrier isn't nothing new. What's new is that I don't have the choice to pay a fee to unlock my phone (before or after the contract expires) and move to another operator. Even if I want to end the contract before its end date, pay the remaining monthly fees, I can't use _my_ phone in another carrier. No matter how much garbage Apple sticks in their EULA (or whatever is they have), it doesn't mean jack if it goes against the law in here (and in france it even goes against the law if they don't have an unlock version in the market), so yeah, it is _my_ phone and I'm free to do whatever I want. The only thing I cannot do is end the contract with the carrier (for the service plan, not the iPhone) thinking I won't have to pay the remaining time (I was the one who ended the contract).... that is, except if Vodafone wins the claim, and by that rendering the contract useless. If that starts to be the norm pretty much goes against everything that was legislated and that the regulator entities try to have. First iPhone, then Nokia, Motorola, Siemens and soon I'll have to buy a new phone every time I change carrier. Those fees are there for a reason, so I can change carriers (pretty much the same logic behind phone number portability: I want to change operator, then I can either pay the fee and move the number with me, or change number). Also for a new mobile carrier (or a virtual one operating on top of a existing one) they would have enormous difficulties getting terminals for their business (ence the competitive laws... they are not only to protect the customers, but also to encourage new, competitive, companies into the market, althou in the end it does give more options to the customer with in this last cenario).
You're right. But only if you take NHS out of context. NHS pays for (almost) _everything_ health related. It goes from primary care to dentistry (not to mention that is one of the top 3 employers in the world... thats alot of wages). Most countries with healthcare policies don't go as far, they pay the basic primary care, some in-patient care and only some cases to long-term healthcare (usualy only on psychiatric hospitals). Some drugs are paid either partialy of in full by the state, but not many (usualy most drugs aren't, they are just tax deductible). So, to compare NHS expenses to any other healthcare system is going into extremes. Pretty much like talking about democratic states and then give Muammar al-Gaddafis Libia as an example (thats how extreme is comparing NHS to a "normal" healthcare system).
I have to disagree with you about the raising taxes and minimizing consumption. We (soon will) have one of the highest energy taxes here in Portugal, not to mention that since last July there's a new building law that mandates the constructors to equip the buildings with solar panels (for large building areas in the first stage, and in May 2008 for all new buildings), wich makes the houses cost around 5k to 7k euros average. We also have the 4th biggest wind energy company since EDP bought Horizon Wind Energy last July, and we've one of the most advanced wave power generators (althou only a pilot, but 3 more are being constructed or in final project phase, and till 2010 more will be in place if it proves to be efficient).
Limitations, within reason, serve in fact to promote development... if you limit power consumption but still give some manuvering margin, companies will see a market there to sell better energy efficient fridges/washing machines/whatever. And with the need to find better energy efficient machines, people will buy then even if it costs a little more since in the long run it's worth it (and the companies that sell them will have the confidence they need to invest more in R&D: money coming in their pockets).
Ofc wind energy and wave power generators aren't cost effective at the moment, but if you can use the solar panels to heat the water, to use that little energy to keep the house warm, or even tap it into the electric grid for extra energy, it's worth it (and taking the Portuguese example, it's not a single house doing it... in May 2008 every new building will have to have it). With the panels being sold for ALL the new buildings (houses, schools, depots, everything), the companies will start to sell loads... more money coming in, and more money for R&D... the ones that can make more efficient and cheap solar panels will win an edge over the rest.
Another thing that was legislated as well, new building will now be rated for their energy consumption/efficiency. So a house with proper thermal shielding, wide double windows (so that more light can come in during the day, also will make it warmer and less electric lights will be on during the day), and alot of other things, will make a house A grade in terms of power consumption ratings. Banks will encourage people to buy better graded ones by giving better loan conditions, lower interest rates, etc. And while doing that, the taxes on energy are being raised never the less. What will happen is that people will run for the houses that give better loan conditions without taking into account the energy rating on them (in a first phase), but when it starts to be obvious the advantages, not only on the loan but in power consumption in general, more and more will search for better rating houses when looking for an house (it happened with domestic electronics such as fridges/dish washers/washing machines/etc when they had to put a power consumption rating sticker on them), constructors will have to take that into account and build houses that overall have a lower power consumption rating.
That, at least as I can see, is progress. By raising taxes within reasonable levels, it creates a need to search for better equipment that can save people some money in the long run, and by doing that encourages R&D for that "new" market.
But that might not work for US... It's a cultural thing. Take a look at your cars in general. There's a cult around SUV's and large engine cars in US, when in Europe our cars tend to have engines less powerful (or so it might look to you), better milages/kilometers per galon/litre (also we impose some engine limitations and gas emitions on the cars sold here, even the ones shared between US and EU markets) and we impose higher fuel taxes then you (yes, in Europe our taxes in general are higher then yours, althou the majority of US public opinion thinks the US has higher taxes then the rest). Results? Well, we have one excelent train grid in Europe, that can takes us everywhere, excelent public trans
.... scientists discovered that by removing all legs to a spider it becomes deaf. The reason behind this is because the spider jumped when asked until all legs were removed, and from there it stop responding to the scientist jump commands.
Regarding the better house design... We have it here :P no, seriously, we now have consumption efficiency ratings for the houses (something like consumption efficiency rating in fridges, dish washers and so on... most EU should know what I'm talking about... and then again). :)
So now the houses here are graded based in their power consumption potencial, like if a house has huge windows so more sun light comes thru, less necessity to have lights on during the day (and have proper shielding so it maintains thermal efficiency and doesn't let heat dissipate thru it), or if the walls have thermal shielding, and several other factors, a house can meet a "A" rating(highest in power/thermal efficiency).
Also banks started to take into account those ratings, and it's easier to get a loan for houses with higher ratings, and also theres a discount on the interest charged by the bank for those houses loan (so cheaper loans, and easier to get/to get approved). So it's not something unheard
No mate, it is possible to prove a negative if a method to prove his counter exists. Lets see an example: I have methods to determine what metals exists in a given object. With the same method I can prove that, lets say, zinc doesn't exist in an object. The problem with religion is that there's no evidence that it exists, and the thing you can't ever prove in science is that something doesn't exist because it has some degree of uncertainty related to what you know/can observe/can extrapolate. You would have to know everything there is to know to prove that something doesn't exist.
So: a negative can be proven if you can provide a method to prove it's counter. Non existance can't be proved unless you have all the knowledge in the universe, and therefore your 100% sure it doesn't exist (but you can say that given the facts provided there's little chance for it to exist).
And with that statement you just firmly stated that you clearly don't understand jack. The ones that make a statement without any (clear) evidence of their believe must prove their point (Galileu, Hawkins, etc).