Roe v. Wade gives differing legal rights based on the trimester. I cannot, based on this alone, give this the status as good legal thinking. If the human gestation period was a prime number, what would have happened to the legal decision?
This is a case in point of the judiciary expanding into legislative functions. And if you agree with the outcome, you are fine with the legal thinking which is based on evenly divisible numbers. Differing rights based on mathematics isn't in the Constitution. And any Supreme Court decision which utilizes such thinking in legal decisions can't claim to be solid legal analysis.
Spot on comment. However, most people don't think like that. If they agree with a decision's results, they like the decision. It could use horrible logic and be based on faulty non-Constitutional reasoning, but many wouldn't care.
Wouldn't it be the move to UNIX that has made it easier for Apple? I believe they are on BSD. The underlying foundation must be built on some sort of POSIX, etc. (whatever standards are the standards, I haven't read up on this in a long time).
I have no idea what kind of internal standards Windows uses.
When I was an undergraduate student, it was before the widespread use of PowerPoint. I would try to transcribe every note, every equation.
When I went to grad school (2002-2004) I found having the PowerPoint slides allowed me to focus more on what the prof. was saying and I just took a few important notes.
To each their own. And if the professor thinks this is best, so be it.
I believe it was Malcolm X who said profanity shows a lack of a vocabulary. While profanity can get the point across more effectively, his point is taken.
You can convey a message without it being obscene. If you can't, either you have something very very obscene to say or those defining obscenity have gone awry.
Classical liberalism was defined by the positions of the 18th century. So depending on what you are conserving, you could be relatively left or right wing.
If you are trying to conserve Constitutional freedoms, you could be considered a modern conservative or a classical liberal.
A conservative of today is not the same thing as a conservative of 150 years ago, etc.
While people are familiar with the general idea of the Peter Principle (we get promoted to our level of incompetence), the Peter Principle has two exceptions. And you hit on one.
The super-competent won't get promoted. You have to jump from organization to organization.
The super-incompetent will get bounced pretty quickly, if you are legally allowed to (France, I'm looking in your direction).
I've seen it mentioned in this thread already, but I want to add my own emphasis.
At least for corporations, people are tied to the clock/calendar. You can't disrupt the old tool until you can work with the old tool. Or, at the very least, be able to send meeting requests and import old calendar information into your new tool.
It is the small things like the Calendar and PowerPoint and file formats which let expensive software cling to a corporation like a bad fungus.
When Big Bang theory was new, many didn't like it due to the harmony it had with theistic assumptions and arguments over the years. The universe had a beginning and that was bad news.
The boss needs to get his cut (taxes). You roll your bones up the food chain. If you don't cut the boss in with the action, you run into major problems. In this case, legislation.
If people want Internet access can't they go to a free public library?
If you want to put some money towards them, that's fine. But do we really need to put access into everyone's homes? I would rather give money to, I don't know, teach people how to read at a high level, do basic math, etc.
A Good Example of Intelligent Design
on
Spore Is EA's New Ace
·
· Score: 0, Redundant
Beauty is a meaningless category in an atheistic system. Just a subjective opinion held by a random bunch of atoms bouncing around which has no ultimate meaning.
It is the belief that there is a God who orders and sustains the universe which undergirded earlier scientific enterprises. People who didn't think the world was illusary. If it was orderly and imbued with reason, we can discover things about it.
Ever notice how physicists are always looking for beautiful and simple theories, like string theory. That doesn't make sense unless theism undergirds your worldview (even if you are unaware it is in the background).
Unfortunately, atheists have no reason for believing that the laws of physics won't change radically tomorrow. Theists do. And that's good for science even if atheists borrow from atheists.
Some people see a campaign donation and just assume corruption or a buyoff. What if the blog/politician/whatever already agrees with the other party?
Now, that's not so corrupt.
Wal-Mart giving stuff to already pro-Wal-Mart (or more likely anti-anti-Wal-Mart) blogs is no big deal. Wal-Mart buying actual blog support would be a big deal.
If the Democratic Party gives a press release to a liberal blog to use, is that a big deal? I wouldn't think so.
I had to fill out all these forms to tell them how much money I made last year. I had to tell them all sorts of other information. If that's not an invasion of privacy, I don't know what is.
My local theaters charge prices I used to see only in Manhattan.
Supply and demand. I'll pay that for Spider-Man, the new Superman, or some other summer event film. But I'm not going to blow a bunch of cash on a film that I know ahead of time isn't worth that much money.
If they moved to a pricing scheme that actually reflected supply and demand (more money for event films on opening weekend and less for others) they would generate more box office overall.
I guess people want to be paid well by companies for producing free software.
Seriously, the economic benefits of free, open software are the similar to outsourcing. Resources which were previously spent can now go to something else and produce more overall value.
From what I've gathered from history, it is socialism that can't sustain itself.
Capitalism has raised everyone's living standards. Even the poor in America have cable, TVs, refrigerators, can be fat, etc., etc.
Our large middle class by any historical standard is incredibly rich. We have access to fruits and vegetables throughout the year. We have cell phones. Usually more than one car.
I generally find that people get jealous when they see people who have a lot. The solution is usually something that leads to everyone having little to next to nothing.
Slashdot Mirror
Roe v. Wade gives differing legal rights based on the trimester. I cannot, based on this alone, give this the status as good legal thinking. If the human gestation period was a prime number, what would have happened to the legal decision?
This is a case in point of the judiciary expanding into legislative functions. And if you agree with the outcome, you are fine with the legal thinking which is based on evenly divisible numbers. Differing rights based on mathematics isn't in the Constitution. And any Supreme Court decision which utilizes such thinking in legal decisions can't claim to be solid legal analysis.
Spot on comment. However, most people don't think like that. If they agree with a decision's results, they like the decision. It could use horrible logic and be based on faulty non-Constitutional reasoning, but many wouldn't care.
http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/ 000/000/011/990ieqmb.asp?pg=1
Wouldn't it be the move to UNIX that has made it easier for Apple? I believe they are on BSD. The underlying foundation must be built on some sort of POSIX, etc. (whatever standards are the standards, I haven't read up on this in a long time).
I have no idea what kind of internal standards Windows uses.
When I was an undergraduate student, it was before the widespread use of PowerPoint. I would try to transcribe every note, every equation.
When I went to grad school (2002-2004) I found having the PowerPoint slides allowed me to focus more on what the prof. was saying and I just took a few important notes.
To each their own. And if the professor thinks this is best, so be it.
I believe it was Malcolm X who said profanity shows a lack of a vocabulary. While profanity can get the point across more effectively, his point is taken.
You can convey a message without it being obscene. If you can't, either you have something very very obscene to say or those defining obscenity have gone awry.
Classical liberalism was defined by the positions of the 18th century. So depending on what you are conserving, you could be relatively left or right wing.
If you are trying to conserve Constitutional freedoms, you could be considered a modern conservative or a classical liberal.
A conservative of today is not the same thing as a conservative of 150 years ago, etc.
While people are familiar with the general idea of the Peter Principle (we get promoted to our level of incompetence), the Peter Principle has two exceptions. And you hit on one.
The super-competent won't get promoted. You have to jump from organization to organization.
The super-incompetent will get bounced pretty quickly, if you are legally allowed to (France, I'm looking in your direction).
I've seen it mentioned in this thread already, but I want to add my own emphasis.
At least for corporations, people are tied to the clock/calendar. You can't disrupt the old tool until you can work with the old tool. Or, at the very least, be able to send meeting requests and import old calendar information into your new tool.
It is the small things like the Calendar and PowerPoint and file formats which let expensive software cling to a corporation like a bad fungus.
When Big Bang theory was new, many didn't like it due to the harmony it had with theistic assumptions and arguments over the years. The universe had a beginning and that was bad news.
But people got over it.
The boss needs to get his cut (taxes). You roll your bones up the food chain. If you don't cut the boss in with the action, you run into major problems. In this case, legislation.
If people want Internet access can't they go to a free public library?
If you want to put some money towards them, that's fine. But do we really need to put access into everyone's homes? I would rather give money to, I don't know, teach people how to read at a high level, do basic math, etc.
And you get to be the Designer.
Beauty is a meaningless category in an atheistic system. Just a subjective opinion held by a random bunch of atoms bouncing around which has no ultimate meaning.
I meant to say "borrow from theists."
It is the belief that there is a God who orders and sustains the universe which undergirded earlier scientific enterprises. People who didn't think the world was illusary. If it was orderly and imbued with reason, we can discover things about it.
Ever notice how physicists are always looking for beautiful and simple theories, like string theory. That doesn't make sense unless theism undergirds your worldview (even if you are unaware it is in the background).
Unfortunately, atheists have no reason for believing that the laws of physics won't change radically tomorrow. Theists do. And that's good for science even if atheists borrow from atheists.
Duplicating good ideas should be expected. Something like calculus shouldn't be trademarked, etc.
But if you place the threshhold high enough, patents (esp. for a limited duration and done right) can be very much warranted and beneficial.
Some people see a campaign donation and just assume corruption or a buyoff. What if the blog/politician/whatever already agrees with the other party?
Now, that's not so corrupt.
Wal-Mart giving stuff to already pro-Wal-Mart (or more likely anti-anti-Wal-Mart) blogs is no big deal. Wal-Mart buying actual blog support would be a big deal.
If the Democratic Party gives a press release to a liberal blog to use, is that a big deal? I wouldn't think so.
I had to fill out all these forms to tell them how much money I made last year. I had to tell them all sorts of other information. If that's not an invasion of privacy, I don't know what is.
My local theaters charge prices I used to see only in Manhattan.
Supply and demand. I'll pay that for Spider-Man, the new Superman, or some other summer event film. But I'm not going to blow a bunch of cash on a film that I know ahead of time isn't worth that much money.
If they moved to a pricing scheme that actually reflected supply and demand (more money for event films on opening weekend and less for others) they would generate more box office overall.
If socialism is so fragile that it can only work in theory, we should look for another theory.
You forgot to add history to your list.
I guess people want to be paid well by companies for producing free software.
Seriously, the economic benefits of free, open software are the similar to outsourcing. Resources which were previously spent can now go to something else and produce more overall value.
If I'm doing better, should I care than someone is doing even better than I am?
Beyond jealousy of course.
From what I've gathered from history, it is socialism that can't sustain itself.
Capitalism has raised everyone's living standards. Even the poor in America have cable, TVs, refrigerators, can be fat, etc., etc.
Our large middle class by any historical standard is incredibly rich. We have access to fruits and vegetables throughout the year. We have cell phones. Usually more than one car.
I generally find that people get jealous when they see people who have a lot. The solution is usually something that leads to everyone having little to next to nothing.