Well, when it comes to improper use of blades, America is not all that enlightened either...
True enough perhaps, but your point is actually my own: some cultural artifacts are objectively worse than others. Specifically, male circumcision is not as bad a thing as female circumcision. If we removed the glans and not just the foreskin, then the procedures would be comparable.
Arguably they should both be stopped... but I'm not going to take to the streets defending my dearly-departed foreskin or the King of Thailand's hat.
The king of Thailand is protected by a set of old laws called Lese Majeste, which essentially means it is a crime to injure the king in any way (including verbally).You may not agree with it, and in fact, the Thai king himself is against these laws, but this is their way.
And in some parts of Africa a female child may have her clitoris excised to save her from sexual temptation later in life. Now in some less-enlightened quarters, this is considered a bad idea. But hey, what do I know, I'm just an ugly American imposing my cultural views on the world, right?
Cultural relativism is as harmful a mind virus as religion. Some things in the world are broken, and sticking your fingers in your ears and pretending otherwise does not make you morally superior.
YES, this is how a post-nuclear world will look. A nuclear weapon needs to be delivered, and if the USA has total air superiority -- to the extent that we can shoot down any plane or missile you launch -- then your nukes don't help you at all.
Somebody needs to Google the name "Matthias Rust."
Why don't we just fill a bunch of concrete containers with the stuff and drop them into a subduction zone?
Because we're going to want it back later.
As usual, as soon as the term "nuclear waste" comes up, people lose all rational foresight. The stuff comes out of the reactor with a great deal of residual energy (hence its continuing danger). We just can't/don't currently take advantage of it.
If someone were to come up with a safe way to permanently dispose of nuclear waste, he wouldn't be doing the future any favors.
I hope you will not be one of those people who's so offended at being corrected that you declare "well it means something different now" and cromulently go about your day.
My use of the phrase was precisely correct, thank you very much.:-P
Well semantically, the difference between "Experiencing pain" and "Displaying pain behaviours" is so thin as to be non-existent. Might as well assume they're the same thing.
One problem I have with the study's premise is that we don't yet know that much about how memory works in humans, much less how it works in crustaceans. So the article begs the question when it equates "memory of prior unpleasant experience in shell #X" with "sensation of pain."
Put another way: all the article demonstrates is that crabs have the same ability to experience and remember "pain" that a science-fair robot running on an 8-bit microcontroller has.
Crustaceans are bugs. They have like 5 brain cells. What Wallace is describing is just an aversive reflex, not "pain." You can get the same type of reaction from certain plants.
Although this proposal, and the people behind it, are certifiable, the idea that a theory of evolution holds some special uncriticizable position because of the 'preponderance of evidence' is just as stifling to scientific progress as the dogmatic fervor with which academia held to Newton's theory of gravitation
You can criticize the theory of evolution when you earn the right to do so.
You earn that right in a classroom, not in a church.
But the disease is so virulent that a victim is assured of becoming a zombie and spreading it with just one bite, so there is no way to keep it out in the long term.
Well, duh. Zombies are metaphors for death. We all join them in the end. Any zombie-hunting game where it's possible to "win" is missing the point from square one.
Only 2% of the cars I see are new, the rest are 10 to 20 years old on the highway.
Where do you live? Cuba?
You do know those highways were, for the most part, designed for 75 MPH+, long before the Federally-mandated 55 MPH NMSL?
If people want to get somewhere faster, I'd suggest a radical new approach - leave home 10 minutes sooner. Increasing your speed 10% to get there faster isn't worth getting ticketed (and speeding tickets are not a big source of revenue, as they do not run speed traps around here). Going the speed limit isn't hurting you. I fail to see how it's a big conspiracy or arbitrary. You think the government can ever just set something? No, it went through years of arguing and compromise. If they bumped it up to 90, people would just want to go 100. If they put it up to 100, people would want to go 120. It's "wah wah I can't do it" syndrome.
(Shrug) Going fast is fun. Deal with it and get over it. Stay in the right lane, and you'll be fine.
How can they do this? How can this get out of the marketing department at Dell without someone getting fired, or sued, or a stop-payment notice put on their last paycheck at least?
No, it's not even close. "Speeding" is driving faster than a number written at the side of the road by people sitting in offices 300 miles away. Every driver is responsible for assessing traffic, road, and weather conditions, and adjusting speed accordingly.
Exceeding the appropriate speed for conditions is what gets you into trouble. "Speeding" just gets you ticketed.
While I do not agree with the bill, no game publisher's free speech is being restricted, no game company is being prosecuted by the government for the content of the games. The games are still able to be sold, and while not as damaging as cigarettes, alcohol, guns (yes, in most states you have to be 18 to jump through the hoops solo to get a gun), or porn, an average, voting citizen's access to the games are not restricted and the game company has not been silenced.
First Amendment law requires strict scrutiny. That means the government must, when regulating sales or distribution of material covered by the First Amendment, demonstrate that its proposed law has the minimum necessary effects required to accomplish its goals. Since the goal (regulating commercial press activity) is unconstitutional to begin with, there's no way the law can meet strict scrutiny.
Seriously. Why do you think that, out of dozens of attempts to pass laws like this in various states, absolutely none of them have survived court challenges?
A further question. The First Amendment puts a free press on an equal footing with the free exercise of religion. What do you think might happen if the Utah legislature attempted to dictate the terms under which Mormon literature and religious items could be sold?
Slashdot Mirror
Well, when it comes to improper use of blades, America is not all that enlightened either...
True enough perhaps, but your point is actually my own: some cultural artifacts are objectively worse than others. Specifically, male circumcision is not as bad a thing as female circumcision. If we removed the glans and not just the foreskin, then the procedures would be comparable.
Arguably they should both be stopped... but I'm not going to take to the streets defending my dearly-departed foreskin or the King of Thailand's hat.
The king of Thailand is protected by a set of old laws called Lese Majeste, which essentially means it is a crime to injure the king in any way (including verbally).You may not agree with it, and in fact, the Thai king himself is against these laws, but this is their way.
And in some parts of Africa a female child may have her clitoris excised to save her from sexual temptation later in life. Now in some less-enlightened quarters, this is considered a bad idea. But hey, what do I know, I'm just an ugly American imposing my cultural views on the world, right?
Cultural relativism is as harmful a mind virus as religion. Some things in the world are broken, and sticking your fingers in your ears and pretending otherwise does not make you morally superior.
YES, this is how a post-nuclear world will look. A nuclear weapon needs to be delivered, and if the USA has total air superiority -- to the extent that we can shoot down any plane or missile you launch -- then your nukes don't help you at all.
Somebody needs to Google the name "Matthias Rust."
Those people really are nothing but ants.
That, and their king has a fugly wife and a really dumb-looking hat.
Why don't we just fill a bunch of concrete containers with the stuff and drop them into a subduction zone?
Because we're going to want it back later.
As usual, as soon as the term "nuclear waste" comes up, people lose all rational foresight. The stuff comes out of the reactor with a great deal of residual energy (hence its continuing danger). We just can't/don't currently take advantage of it.
If someone were to come up with a safe way to permanently dispose of nuclear waste, he wouldn't be doing the future any favors.
Cool, sorry about that. The original comment was a terse one, and seemed to suggest something it didn't.
I guess you'll have to explain your comment to me
You first. People who deny that HIV causes AIDS are making an extraordinary claim, and they need to supply extraordinary proof.
"I don't believe in Koch's Postulates, and I vote!" - bumper sticker seen on Matt Perry's car
I hope you will not be one of those people who's so offended at being corrected that you declare "well it means something different now" and cromulently go about your day.
My use of the phrase was precisely correct, thank you very much. :-P
We only very recently started eating meat, and are still horribly equipped for it.
Horse shit. That argument belongs in the dustbin next to Creationism.
Have you tried eating raw meat? Go on ... and then tell me we're "supposed to eat meat" and it's natural
Have you tried foraging for vegetation on a trackless plain in Africa, with only the skin of your last meal to keep the rain off your backside?
Do you think our ancestors grazed at the salad bar at Wendy's, or something? Jeez, what a moran.
Well semantically, the difference between "Experiencing pain" and "Displaying pain behaviours" is so thin as to be non-existent. Might as well assume they're the same thing.
One problem I have with the study's premise is that we don't yet know that much about how memory works in humans, much less how it works in crustaceans. So the article begs the question when it equates "memory of prior unpleasant experience in shell #X" with "sensation of pain."
Put another way: all the article demonstrates is that crabs have the same ability to experience and remember "pain" that a science-fair robot running on an 8-bit microcontroller has.
Crustaceans are bugs. They have like 5 brain cells. What Wallace is describing is just an aversive reflex, not "pain." You can get the same type of reaction from certain plants.
Although this proposal, and the people behind it, are certifiable, the idea that a theory of evolution holds some special uncriticizable position because of the 'preponderance of evidence' is just as stifling to scientific progress as the dogmatic fervor with which academia held to Newton's theory of gravitation
You can criticize the theory of evolution when you earn the right to do so.
You earn that right in a classroom, not in a church.
Someone actually did send him a crowbar.
Is there a way for experienced coders to volunteer to help?
But the disease is so virulent that a victim is assured of becoming a zombie and spreading it with just one bite, so there is no way to keep it out in the long term.
Well, duh. Zombies are metaphors for death. We all join them in the end. Any zombie-hunting game where it's possible to "win" is missing the point from square one.
Only 2% of the cars I see are new, the rest are 10 to 20 years old on the highway.
Where do you live? Cuba?
You do know those highways were, for the most part, designed for 75 MPH+, long before the Federally-mandated 55 MPH NMSL?
If people want to get somewhere faster, I'd suggest a radical new approach - leave home 10 minutes sooner. Increasing your speed 10% to get there faster isn't worth getting ticketed (and speeding tickets are not a big source of revenue, as they do not run speed traps around here). Going the speed limit isn't hurting you. I fail to see how it's a big conspiracy or arbitrary. You think the government can ever just set something? No, it went through years of arguing and compromise. If they bumped it up to 90, people would just want to go 100. If they put it up to 100, people would want to go 120. It's "wah wah I can't do it" syndrome.
(Shrug) Going fast is fun. Deal with it and get over it. Stay in the right lane, and you'll be fine.
Work on your reading comprehension first, then go back through your state driver's handbook.
http://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=QUJqWc6seYk
How can they do this? How can this get out of the marketing department at Dell without someone getting fired, or sued, or a stop-payment notice put on their last paycheck at least?
That is almost the definition of speeding.
No, it's not even close. "Speeding" is driving faster than a number written at the side of the road by people sitting in offices 300 miles away. Every driver is responsible for assessing traffic, road, and weather conditions, and adjusting speed accordingly.
Exceeding the appropriate speed for conditions is what gets you into trouble.
"Speeding" just gets you ticketed.
So does my IBM XT.
As others have noted, that would be very difficult since APCP isn't really explosive
APCP is, oh, about as dangerous as marijuana.
Gee, that helps, huh.
ROFL. Trust me, kid, the world will look a lot different once you turn 18.
A few people, notably Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, have been trying to start a movement to oppose current abuses of power.
Social conservatism is probably the worst abuse of power the US has ever seen.
While I do not agree with the bill, no game publisher's free speech is being restricted, no game company is being prosecuted by the government for the content of the games. The games are still able to be sold, and while not as damaging as cigarettes, alcohol, guns (yes, in most states you have to be 18 to jump through the hoops solo to get a gun), or porn, an average, voting citizen's access to the games are not restricted and the game company has not been silenced.
First Amendment law requires strict scrutiny. That means the government must, when regulating sales or distribution of material covered by the First Amendment, demonstrate that its proposed law has the minimum necessary effects required to accomplish its goals. Since the goal (regulating commercial press activity) is unconstitutional to begin with, there's no way the law can meet strict scrutiny.
Seriously. Why do you think that, out of dozens of attempts to pass laws like this in various states, absolutely none of them have survived court challenges?
A further question. The First Amendment puts a free press on an equal footing with the free exercise of religion. What do you think might happen if the Utah legislature attempted to dictate the terms under which Mormon literature and religious items could be sold?