I'm not pro-union. Nor am I anti-union. I like seeing an even playing field. With that said about my prejudices, I think anyone could see that their demands were perfectly reasonable.
Sometimes complexity gets in the way of a fun experience. Both have their place. Sometimes you want a game you have to master and struggle with. But if it is too complex, I lack the time to master it as I get older. For those reasons, the Wii seems to fill a badly needed niche.
I'm not being anti-Linux here. But in any grand theory of poor Linux adoption, you have to account for the growth of Macs. Would you accept a grand unified theory that skips over gravity?
Why are people switching from Windows to Mac in significant numbers? And why not Linux?
Just because you have a ton of money does not mean that you are an economics expert.
Capitalism is how we allocate finite resources. It is the best we got.
When government interferes, you can get shortages and other bad economic blowback effects. Especially when decisions are made with political rationales.
Capitalism doesn't preclude charity or setting up a business to help train and employee poor people, etc. You can start a company that isn't completely focused on making as much money as humanly possible. That's allowed.
But if you try to change the overall system, I can only foresee bad things happening.
The existence of the Bill of Rights created the impression in people that if the government isn't explicitly banned from doing something, the government can do it.
Both ideas have merits. If there were no Bill of Rights, people would run totally roughshod over rights. At the same time, people lost sight of the need for explicit permission in Constitution for government activity.
I believe the final blow was FDR's court packing scheme. The Supreme Court kept ruling New Deal initiatives unconstitutional but backed down some after FDR's threat.
So, according to the explicit permission view, everything from Social Security to the Department of Education would go away. Unless a bunch of amendments were passed. That isn't going to happen anytime soon.
I generally find that people with similar attitudes to yours comes down to miracles can't happen because miracles can't happen. I've argued the evidence for the Resurrection before and the objections usually boil down to that, not that the historical evidence for the Resurrection is poor.
Levels of burden of proofs and evidence will come down to your philosophical pre-commitments. So a better approach would be to test those pre-commitments for consistency, arbitrariness, etc. and test those.
You have just bundled a whole set of philosophical presuppositions into what you just said. You are pretty much assuming miracles can't happen. And science conflicts with a belief in miracles.
Now, a scientist can believe there are good reasons and evidence for the Resurrection. Now there is nothing inconsistent with being a scientist and believing there is evidence for the Resurrection. In other words, you can work and believe things about nature without buying into natural-ism.
"Similarly, a scientist who at least attempts to adopt only beliefs which can be supported directly with physical evidence may not totally succeed because non-evidence-based beliefs are often required in daily life to simply function."
In other words, to live with the philosophy you presuppose you must be inconsistent with those beliefs.
What you are really saying is that people should try to be as consistent as possible with a particular philosophy (naturalism, scientific rationalism, or something along those lines) which you believe in even if they fall short (and must fall short in order to function).
Your definition of coherence is how closely does it comport with your philosophical beliefs. And your philosophy makes it hard for you to understand how one can be a scientist without adopting your philosophy. That isn't coherence.
I remember hearing a story way back when about perceptions slowing down for atheletes, which was referred to as "being in the zone."
I experienced that as well a few times as a kid playing sports. I just figured that at certain points, for some unknown reason, my perceptions slowed things down.
Record companies would drop or not sign promising acts if they didn't fit a certain mold. When grunge/alternative was king, it was harder to break if you weren't a grunge band from anecdotes I've ehrd. I'm sure in the early days for grunge it was harder for them if they weren't a hair band.
Now, a band can produce their music and get it out with less corporate filters. If it doesn't fit a certain pattern or trend, so be it.
What you are on to is a philosophic problem with this quantum interpretation. The observer/non-observer distinction is meaningless in naturalistic philosophy.
So the first question is "what counts as an observer?"
If observers do change things, naturalism is false as a philosophy.
At least according to the Founders, we have 3 equal and separate branches. The Executive can't order the courts to do something. Or they can, but the Executive should have the right to tell them to pound sand. The courts shouldn't be able to order the Executive Branch to do something either. They are not, or at least should not, be the super-branch.
Furthermore, Executive Privledge is a real concern. If you have to face lawsuits and investigations about advice given to the President or things along those lines, everyone will go into CYA mode. The President will not be given candid advice.
My viewpoint is based on the Constitution and not on any concern about what is in the emails or what the emails are about. It doesn't matter. That's the principle.
This principle applies to when Democrats control the White House and when Republicans control the White House.
From what I've read, Edward Gibbon in the 18th century took the same view. But I would agree with the previous comment that these theories tell you a lot about the person making the theory.
I don't think taking care of the poor and orphans and people dying in plagues was a negative influence for Rome. I'm not sure how official, state-sanctioned Christianity would hurt Rome, any more than the previous emperor cult. Furthermore, Rome was already in decline by the time Constantine was around.
Slashdot Mirror
I hear so much about how conservatives are evil jerks and liberals are "loving" and "tolerant." This is a prime of how stereotypes bite the dust.
It's ok to hate someone because I disagree with him!
I'm not pro-union. Nor am I anti-union. I like seeing an even playing field. With that said about my prejudices, I think anyone could see that their demands were perfectly reasonable.
Sometimes complexity gets in the way of a fun experience. Both have their place. Sometimes you want a game you have to master and struggle with. But if it is too complex, I lack the time to master it as I get older. For those reasons, the Wii seems to fill a badly needed niche.
I'm not being anti-Linux here. But in any grand theory of poor Linux adoption, you have to account for the growth of Macs. Would you accept a grand unified theory that skips over gravity?
Why are people switching from Windows to Mac in significant numbers? And why not Linux?
It's not an ozone hole. It's a solar panel for a sex machine.
Just because you have a ton of money does not mean that you are an economics expert.
Capitalism is how we allocate finite resources. It is the best we got.
When government interferes, you can get shortages and other bad economic blowback effects. Especially when decisions are made with political rationales.
Capitalism doesn't preclude charity or setting up a business to help train and employee poor people, etc. You can start a company that isn't completely focused on making as much money as humanly possible. That's allowed.
But if you try to change the overall system, I can only foresee bad things happening.
The existence of the Bill of Rights created the impression in people that if the government isn't explicitly banned from doing something, the government can do it.
Both ideas have merits. If there were no Bill of Rights, people would run totally roughshod over rights. At the same time, people lost sight of the need for explicit permission in Constitution for government activity.
I believe the final blow was FDR's court packing scheme. The Supreme Court kept ruling New Deal initiatives unconstitutional but backed down some after FDR's threat.
So, according to the explicit permission view, everything from Social Security to the Department of Education would go away. Unless a bunch of amendments were passed. That isn't going to happen anytime soon.
Ad Hominem argumentation.
Besides, I saw his talk on Book TV. Fascism is a phenomena of the Left. He backs up his argument and seems solid to me.
But this has no bearing on Galileo.
I generally find that people with similar attitudes to yours comes down to miracles can't happen because miracles can't happen. I've argued the evidence for the Resurrection before and the objections usually boil down to that, not that the historical evidence for the Resurrection is poor.
Levels of burden of proofs and evidence will come down to your philosophical pre-commitments. So a better approach would be to test those pre-commitments for consistency, arbitrariness, etc. and test those.
You have just bundled a whole set of philosophical presuppositions into what you just said. You are pretty much assuming miracles can't happen. And science conflicts with a belief in miracles.
Now, a scientist can believe there are good reasons and evidence for the Resurrection. Now there is nothing inconsistent with being a scientist and believing there is evidence for the Resurrection. In other words, you can work and believe things about nature without buying into natural-ism.
"Similarly, a scientist who at least attempts to adopt only beliefs which can be supported directly with physical evidence may not totally succeed because non-evidence-based beliefs are often required in daily life to simply function."
In other words, to live with the philosophy you presuppose you must be inconsistent with those beliefs.
What you are really saying is that people should try to be as consistent as possible with a particular philosophy (naturalism, scientific rationalism, or something along those lines) which you believe in even if they fall short (and must fall short in order to function).
Your definition of coherence is how closely does it comport with your philosophical beliefs. And your philosophy makes it hard for you to understand how one can be a scientist without adopting your philosophy. That isn't coherence.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OWU5ZDk3NGY3OGI4NDY1OTdmNzc2NmEzYjUzZWQxNWE=
The story of Galileo is a tad more complicated than the simplistic version we're used to. I'm no Roman Catholic, but this meme needs to be corrected.
If it makes you feel better: I would like pictures of Bea Arthur and a football helmet filled with cottage cheese.
Could Improv Everywhere being doing this as a gag? If memory serves, there was a fake suit from McDonald's?
Not saying this is a gag, but it is hard to trust pranksters. Also, this is assuming the news site is in on the gag.
My money is on Best Buy having no sense of humor and this is real.
I remember hearing a story way back when about perceptions slowing down for atheletes, which was referred to as "being in the zone."
I experienced that as well a few times as a kid playing sports. I just figured that at certain points, for some unknown reason, my perceptions slowed things down.
He's waiting for Axl Rose to put out that new "Guns N' Roses" album.
Are you saying turning a Mountain Dew vending machine into an evil Transformer with good General Motors Transformers lacks artistic integrity?
Or did you expect an adaptation of a 80s cartoon which was a toy advertisement to be less blatant with the product placements?
Record companies would drop or not sign promising acts if they didn't fit a certain mold. When grunge/alternative was king, it was harder to break if you weren't a grunge band from anecdotes I've ehrd. I'm sure in the early days for grunge it was harder for them if they weren't a hair band.
Now, a band can produce their music and get it out with less corporate filters. If it doesn't fit a certain pattern or trend, so be it.
What you are on to is a philosophic problem with this quantum interpretation. The observer/non-observer distinction is meaningless in naturalistic philosophy.
So the first question is "what counts as an observer?"
If observers do change things, naturalism is false as a philosophy.
Joking aside, I would assume the technical solution won't work for those truly determined unless you went to repressive monitoring.
At least according to the Founders, we have 3 equal and separate branches. The Executive can't order the courts to do something. Or they can, but the Executive should have the right to tell them to pound sand. The courts shouldn't be able to order the Executive Branch to do something either. They are not, or at least should not, be the super-branch.
Furthermore, Executive Privledge is a real concern. If you have to face lawsuits and investigations about advice given to the President or things along those lines, everyone will go into CYA mode. The President will not be given candid advice.
My viewpoint is based on the Constitution and not on any concern about what is in the emails or what the emails are about. It doesn't matter. That's the principle.
This principle applies to when Democrats control the White House and when Republicans control the White House.
All people doing illegal activity will encrypt. That's basicly true.
Not all encrypters are doing something illegal.
They were the band that laughed at Scott Tinnerman.
Batman. Obviously.
Oh no. I think I have to change my sig.
From what I've read, Edward Gibbon in the 18th century took the same view. But I would agree with the previous comment that these theories tell you a lot about the person making the theory.
I don't think taking care of the poor and orphans and people dying in plagues was a negative influence for Rome. I'm not sure how official, state-sanctioned Christianity would hurt Rome, any more than the previous emperor cult. Furthermore, Rome was already in decline by the time Constantine was around.