You are confusing "bill" and "law". The laws are single purpose; you don't have multiple issues in one law. A bill, on the other hand, can read something like "do X to law L and do Y to law M", and you can easily have X/L and Y/M be unrelated.
I would say that you are poorly informed. The Anglican Church has not stagnated in the Dark Ages, and I would say rides a pretty reasonable line between the fundamentalist nuts and the liberal crackpots, by and large managing to be reasonable with respect to society around them. Please don't confuse the vocal fringes with the mainstream.
Science is about the "how", religion is about the "why". The creation stories (pl.) of Genesis are stories that say that we are in a special relationship with God. As far as being literal, they are not even consistent with each other if taken truly literally. Science did not replace religion, it augmented it. Many respected scientists are/were religious folk "investigating God's creation". The only reason it took this long to have the Church of England make a statement is that it takes a long time to get people in the Anglican Church to agree with each other.
Many people make decisions based on the Church's stance on issues, and therefore that stance has import, whether or not you personally believe. Look at the history of almost any western nation. History has been and will continue to be massively shaped by religion. You may be surprised by the number of things coming out of religious beliefs, such as hospitals, orphanages, etc.
I, for one, am glad to see the Church of England making a public statement, even if it is very late in the making. Perhaps more people will see the more reasonable portion of Christianity instead of the lunatic fringe.
Assume both the following are true:
1) Creationism is a misconception, and
2) Creationism is a world view.
When discussing creationism, which of the two is more likely to fuel conflict and which is going to foster understanding? When you have a group of people with a world view that differs from yours, discussion will leave both you and them more enlightened, even if they are wrong. In another context, if certain groups view Americans in a particular (wrong) way, it does not work to say that they are wrong, but rather Americans need to understand why they think that way. Otherwise things don't work.
I realize that there is no legal mechanism. That is why we have routing shenanigans now and again. However, ARIN nominally has the power to revoke address allocations, and IP hijacking has been dealt with before. Slashdot talked about it recently, and in the connected article, it mentions a case where a block got revoked (pdf). Googling around about the Slashdot incident shows that NASA did not seem to care that the address block was used by spammers. There are lots of unused IP addresses out there in legacy space, and they can be taken back, especially since some don't even seem to be cared about.
Once the decision to revoke IP addresses happens, then IP address hijackers can be dealt with as they have been, by disconnecting them from the Internet. This has been done in the past when disruptive hijacking occurred, and it can happen with revocations too. Granted, there are many ASs out there, and there is less incentive to do something when nothing truly bad is happening, but with enough people on board, I imagine the organizations with the revoked addresses could be made to feel enough pain for it to happen.
Also, consider that by 2012 we'll have run out of public IPv4 addresses.
That is not the hard fact it sounds like, but depends on a number of assumptions that may or may not pan out. This has been proclaimed for quite a while now, and the date keeps getting pushed back. Why? Because assumptions keep getting broken by things like NAT and CIDR. The next big thing I imagine will be the reallocation of class A addresses: why should the likes of HP get multiple class A's?
I predict that the allocation of IPv4 addresses will not have a hard stop, but rather will trail off over time as IPv4 addresses slowly become harder and harder to come by. That is what has happened so far: addresses were thrown out like candy originally, then the aforementioned class A's were stopped, and then class B's were largely stopped too. It is hard to get a large chunk any more, and the trend will continue, but the change will be gradual.
I think it's much more likely that we will see antitrust action about the lock-in between newer iPods and iTunes (Only iTunes can put music on those, because a special hash has to be generated).
Except the has hash been broken. Google "ipod without itunes hash". And the iPod is not tied to iTunes. Google "ipod without itunes".
The big difference is that there is a physical presence in one case and not the other. You should have used a car analogy:
-----
Mr. Johnson was recently arrested after finding Mr. Smith's car door unlocked.
Mr. Johnson snuck into Mr. Smith's car and looked in his glove compartment.
Afterwards Mr. Johnson provided a detailed account of how Mr. Smith had left his car door insecure and ways to better secure the car door.
Mr. Smith wasn't amused by the report and had Mr. Johnson arrested for tresspassing and breaking and entering.
Mr Johnson's defense is grounded in the fact he was helping Mr. Smith become a better car owner by sneaking into Mr. Smith's car.
-----
Granted, the person should not have looked in the glove compartment (user accounts), but it is a far cry from watching someone sleeping in his own home.
Situation: Wife likes to have sex less often than I. If I do not get it enough and bug her, she gets upset either because (1) she doesn't like being bugged or (2) she feels guilty for not doing her duty. To release my tension so I do not bug her too much, I go off and do my thing. If she finds out (she uses the same browser I do), she feels upset I do such a thing or guilty that she does not do her duty which forces me to do such a thing.
Conclusion: Privacy mode preserves family harmony, but does not hide pleasures.
The point of this technology is not to scale up, but to scale down. In the first world, yes, it will be a niche product. However, the idea is to use it in poor areas without electricity in the third world. If it did end up costing $10, then this could provide light very cheaply in places where they need it.
The question usually comes to whether there is a legitimate legal use of the item, and how common that use is. As an extreme example, what about an atomic bomb? Could any individual legitimately have one for a lawful purpose? I would say not. What about a hammer or chainsaw? I would say most definitely, and the illegal uses are miniscule in comparison. Then you get into the grey area of automatic machine guns, DVD ripping software, and other items that have substantial illegal use. To not see that there is a continuum is idiotic. Really, you mean to say that you believe that the legal uses of DVD ripping software are important enough to trump the illegal uses, and so should be legal. Acknowledge that there is a line, and that the argument is where to draw it.
As an aside, while not the architects, owners of tall buildings/bridges have been sued for making it too easy for people to jump. Being from the San Frncisco Bay Area, I mention the Golden Gate Bridge specifically.
Yes, everywhere. You can be sued (all that is necessary is for the other party to file), but the suit can then be rejected as meritless (or something else). It doesn't mean you weren't sued.
Damn, I screwed up. Completely throw away the last sentence and replace it with "This paper is questioning the currently accepted amounts of carbon available for plant consumption and the size and rate of increase of the plant biomass over the past 10 million years, which doesn't actually relate to the reliability of carbon-dating techniques."
Gad, I normally avoid reading the religious posts, because it pulls all types out of the woodwork for no good result. However, I accidentally read yours, so now I need to respond.
They will go to great lengths to explain away why what they do or don't is covered by some painful translation-based loopholes, and what everyone else does is what's really wrong.
The big reason that Christians don't follow a lot of the stuff in the old testament is because they aren't Jews. Kosher eating, circumcision, etc. can be totally ignored for that reason.
The second big reason is that "abominations", things being "shameful", having "slave obey [their] masters", and other such things were simply statements to not disrupt society. Christianity is about love and community, which rules out divisiveness without reason.
The Suess Effect causes a lower than usual amount of C-14 to be incorporated into plants, which causes the BP ("Before Present" ("present" being 1950) which really means uncalibrated) date to be too old. However, calibration adjusts for these inaccuracies. The calibration curve is created using a variety of means, such as dendrochronology, speleothems, and ocean sediments. This paper is questioning the quality of the current accepted calibration derived from ocean sediments.
Slashdot Mirror
You are confusing "bill" and "law". The laws are single purpose; you don't have multiple issues in one law. A bill, on the other hand, can read something like "do X to law L and do Y to law M", and you can easily have X/L and Y/M be unrelated.
Why? The border search exception.
I would say that you are poorly informed. The Anglican Church has not stagnated in the Dark Ages, and I would say rides a pretty reasonable line between the fundamentalist nuts and the liberal crackpots, by and large managing to be reasonable with respect to society around them. Please don't confuse the vocal fringes with the mainstream.
Science is about the "how", religion is about the "why". The creation stories (pl.) of Genesis are stories that say that we are in a special relationship with God. As far as being literal, they are not even consistent with each other if taken truly literally. Science did not replace religion, it augmented it. Many respected scientists are/were religious folk "investigating God's creation". The only reason it took this long to have the Church of England make a statement is that it takes a long time to get people in the Anglican Church to agree with each other.
Many people make decisions based on the Church's stance on issues, and therefore that stance has import, whether or not you personally believe. Look at the history of almost any western nation. History has been and will continue to be massively shaped by religion. You may be surprised by the number of things coming out of religious beliefs, such as hospitals, orphanages, etc.
I, for one, am glad to see the Church of England making a public statement, even if it is very late in the making. Perhaps more people will see the more reasonable portion of Christianity instead of the lunatic fringe.
Assume both the following are true:
1) Creationism is a misconception, and
2) Creationism is a world view.
When discussing creationism, which of the two is more likely to fuel conflict and which is going to foster understanding? When you have a group of people with a world view that differs from yours, discussion will leave both you and them more enlightened, even if they are wrong. In another context, if certain groups view Americans in a particular (wrong) way, it does not work to say that they are wrong, but rather Americans need to understand why they think that way. Otherwise things don't work.
It's punishment for the sins of the parents or, if you believe in reincarnation, the sins of the person being reborn.
I realize that there is no legal mechanism. That is why we have routing shenanigans now and again. However, ARIN nominally has the power to revoke address allocations, and IP hijacking has been dealt with before. Slashdot talked about it recently, and in the connected article, it mentions a case where a block got revoked (pdf). Googling around about the Slashdot incident shows that NASA did not seem to care that the address block was used by spammers. There are lots of unused IP addresses out there in legacy space, and they can be taken back, especially since some don't even seem to be cared about.
Once the decision to revoke IP addresses happens, then IP address hijackers can be dealt with as they have been, by disconnecting them from the Internet. This has been done in the past when disruptive hijacking occurred, and it can happen with revocations too. Granted, there are many ASs out there, and there is less incentive to do something when nothing truly bad is happening, but with enough people on board, I imagine the organizations with the revoked addresses could be made to feel enough pain for it to happen.
Also, consider that by 2012 we'll have run out of public IPv4 addresses.
That is not the hard fact it sounds like, but depends on a number of assumptions that may or may not pan out. This has been proclaimed for quite a while now, and the date keeps getting pushed back. Why? Because assumptions keep getting broken by things like NAT and CIDR. The next big thing I imagine will be the reallocation of class A addresses: why should the likes of HP get multiple class A's?
I predict that the allocation of IPv4 addresses will not have a hard stop, but rather will trail off over time as IPv4 addresses slowly become harder and harder to come by. That is what has happened so far: addresses were thrown out like candy originally, then the aforementioned class A's were stopped, and then class B's were largely stopped too. It is hard to get a large chunk any more, and the trend will continue, but the change will be gradual.
Did you read the toaster's man page first?
It should read "Indian Woman Convicted by Brain Scan of Murder".
What's a "Brain Scan of Murder"?
Geez people, don't use the passive voice! Say "Brain Scan convicts Indian Woman of Murder".
I think it's much more likely that we will see antitrust action about the lock-in between newer iPods and iTunes (Only iTunes can put music on those, because a special hash has to be generated).
Except the has hash been broken. Google "ipod without itunes hash". And the iPod is not tied to iTunes. Google "ipod without itunes".
The big difference is that there is a physical presence in one case and not the other. You should have used a car analogy:
-----
Mr. Johnson was recently arrested after finding Mr. Smith's car door unlocked.
Mr. Johnson snuck into Mr. Smith's car and looked in his glove compartment.
Afterwards Mr. Johnson provided a detailed account of how Mr. Smith had left his car door insecure and ways to better secure the car door.
Mr. Smith wasn't amused by the report and had Mr. Johnson arrested for tresspassing and breaking and entering.
Mr Johnson's defense is grounded in the fact he was helping Mr. Smith become a better car owner by sneaking into Mr. Smith's car.
-----
Granted, the person should not have looked in the glove compartment (user accounts), but it is a far cry from watching someone sleeping in his own home.
Google's browser is the first to include one.
No, Safari has had it for years.
Situation: Wife likes to have sex less often than I. If I do not get it enough and bug her, she gets upset either because (1) she doesn't like being bugged or (2) she feels guilty for not doing her duty. To release my tension so I do not bug her too much, I go off and do my thing. If she finds out (she uses the same browser I do), she feels upset I do such a thing or guilty that she does not do her duty which forces me to do such a thing.
Conclusion: Privacy mode preserves family harmony, but does not hide pleasures.
The point of this technology is not to scale up, but to scale down. In the first world, yes, it will be a niche product. However, the idea is to use it in poor areas without electricity in the third world. If it did end up costing $10, then this could provide light very cheaply in places where they need it.
Here? (Maybe in a mirror?)
You know, it seems like there are an awful lot of problems with drivers under Vista.
Anything under an elephant will have an awful lot of problems.
Microsoft tested it on a vista box
Fixed that for you. Signed drivers, and all.
Fixed that for you.
Or, maybe people will find out you support piracy.
(Note, in case anyone starts to get too hasty, my point is that it is easy to find stuff the Internet and take it out of context.)
The question usually comes to whether there is a legitimate legal use of the item, and how common that use is. As an extreme example, what about an atomic bomb? Could any individual legitimately have one for a lawful purpose? I would say not. What about a hammer or chainsaw? I would say most definitely, and the illegal uses are miniscule in comparison. Then you get into the grey area of automatic machine guns, DVD ripping software, and other items that have substantial illegal use. To not see that there is a continuum is idiotic. Really, you mean to say that you believe that the legal uses of DVD ripping software are important enough to trump the illegal uses, and so should be legal. Acknowledge that there is a line, and that the argument is where to draw it.
As an aside, while not the architects, owners of tall buildings/bridges have been sued for making it too easy for people to jump. Being from the San Frncisco Bay Area, I mention the Golden Gate Bridge specifically.
Yes, everywhere. You can be sued (all that is necessary is for the other party to file), but the suit can then be rejected as meritless (or something else). It doesn't mean you weren't sued.
Damn, I screwed up. Completely throw away the last sentence and replace it with "This paper is questioning the currently accepted amounts of carbon available for plant consumption and the size and rate of increase of the plant biomass over the past 10 million years, which doesn't actually relate to the reliability of carbon-dating techniques."
I find it amusing that the words associated with William of Ockham are so frequently used to argue against what he believed so thoroughly.
Gad, I normally avoid reading the religious posts, because it pulls all types out of the woodwork for no good result. However, I accidentally read yours, so now I need to respond.
They will go to great lengths to explain away why what they do or don't is covered by some painful translation-based loopholes, and what everyone else does is what's really wrong.
The big reason that Christians don't follow a lot of the stuff in the old testament is because they aren't Jews. Kosher eating, circumcision, etc. can be totally ignored for that reason.
The second big reason is that "abominations", things being "shameful", having "slave obey [their] masters", and other such things were simply statements to not disrupt society. Christianity is about love and community, which rules out divisiveness without reason.
The Suess Effect causes a lower than usual amount of C-14 to be incorporated into plants, which causes the BP ("Before Present" ("present" being 1950) which really means uncalibrated) date to be too old. However, calibration adjusts for these inaccuracies. The calibration curve is created using a variety of means, such as dendrochronology, speleothems, and ocean sediments. This paper is questioning the quality of the current accepted calibration derived from ocean sediments.
Looks like omris did just at the time you submitted.