and he is very careful. He often/always finds the dead bodies and often/always gets confessions.
"he can't get enough evidence to convict the person in a court of law but he can get enough to be utterly certain they deserve to be tortured and killed?" I am pretty sure he always has enough evidence to convict them, the problem being that most of it is obtained illegally and he does not want to get them convicted, he wants to kill them. and he does not torture, he confronts them with their crimes and then with a single strike kills them.
And the law fails all the time, and in my opinion is not necessarily better at judging the right of wrong of things then a single person.
it looks like only 2 students will get any money (and only one gets much). I find it strange that while we know that this happened to all the students only one or two of them gets any compensation.
I admit that he is a anti hero, but the definition of that is so lose most protagonists fit into it. but he is not amoral and not a real anti hero. "but he's got no qualms in letting anyone die or killing someone to be the one surviving a situation" Where do you get this from? This is something he would say, but their is no evidence for it. In all the films he often goes out of his way and puts himself into danger to save others. and sure he is willing and able to kill others, but the only examples you see are him killing bad people who are trying to kill him or other people. I am a huge Riddick fan, and believe I have seen every people of media that relates to him and I do not remember him ever killing when it was not in self defence.
And sure he talks a tough game, multiple times saying keep out of my way and keep up or I will leave you behind, but he always comes back to save the stragglers (or at least all the ones the watchers are supposed to care about).
He is really not even close to a villain in my book. Dexter only kills people who kill lots of other people. So the only thing he does wrong is not to conform to the laws of his country, which is not a moral issue. Therefore, in my opinion, he is not evil in any meaning of the word. Now their are a few examples that could be used to cast him as a villain. Season 5 Episode 1 for example where he kills one person that just acted very rude and aggressive and appeared to be a fully bad person (but who knows, the killed person might just of had a bad day). And their is the fact that he apparently likes killing people, but then I would never condemn someone for their thoughts (and it is made quite obvious he would feel horrible if he ever killed a innocent). So I do not think he could be considered a villain from anyone who was not confused.
In my opinion anti hero's are in general not made as good as they could be by making them far too good. For example Dexter would never kill an innocent even if not killing them would endanger him, any real person in his situation almost certainly would. And Riddick is considered a anti hero simply because he is scary and does not go around saying please and thank you.
The only protagonist on any show or movie I have ever watched that was a true anti hero/villain and never stopped being one was Kira in the animated series/movies Death Note. With the protagonist of Code Geass coming really close and only potentially losing that title by a hair because of the last episode.
As far as I can tell the population of the USA (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=population+of+USA) is around 312 million. Which is not even close to 2 billion....
So how can the US be monitoring over 6 times it population?
I completely disagree it is not the realm of philosophers. philosophers cannot give us probabilities of the likelihood of other life on other planets, that has to do with chemistry and physics.
and that figure (200,000-300,000) I assume if a absolute maximum, and would likely be completely unfeasible.
It very well might not take into account many management problems, like just because you transfered 10 people to a planet does not mean they will be able to accomplish much in terms of population growth or building (even though the species will be growing back on planet earth). and eventually if we are relying on the population growth from earth (or other early plants) for the figure then their is the problem of earth running out of materials to build space craft and just being far away from uninhabited planets.
and that is not even mentioning that trips would take at the minimum a little less then 1 lifetime (so who would even want to go to another planet if it means spending your entire life on a spaceship).
and when inhabiting many planets their would be a big risk of some of them being bombarded by apocalypse sized asteroids or other planet killing phenomenon.
and that figure seems like it would require a lot of procreation, and if that were to continue even a few hundred years after empty planets ran out then the entire race could have some serious population problems.
So basically I am saying that would take a lot of luck, a completely dominate totalitarian government that lasts the entire 200,000-300,000 years, a really strong desire to populate the entire galaxy, and probably some technology to freeze people during transport so that they do not run out of food (and so that they do not have to spend their entire life aboard a spacecraft).
But does science not basically say: yes their is most likely a lot of life out their, but with with the maximum speed being light and with the planets so far away we are unlikely to find any unless we have expanded to many many planets and long distance space flight become common (meaning most likely thousands of years from now minimum). Thoe we or them could just get lucky and some of the first planets we try could have life. But at least for us that will not likely be for a few hundred years and it would almost certainly be unmanned.
But then if we have the chance, no matter how small, of discovering alien life within a few hundred years then their is no reason that an Alien civilization could not do it with us right now.
And it is all well and good to elect someone to be the first person to speak with them. But if they ever did show up it would be such an important event that I would not be surprised if someone important like the leader of the country they land in takes over the job.
And can an argument not be made that you need to tell parents everything to have a healthy relationship or the same for a close confidant/friend.
and if it is so important that the opposition has information why not just make it so that even if he has told no one that he is still legally required to tell the court.
That is a horrible definition of privacy. and if their are exceptions, why not others. Why would you not be able to tell your mother or other trusted confidants.
Also you should be able to expect the lvl of privacy that you use. if you tell X people, and the opposition finds out what you told them then, sure they can use that information. but if you tell trustworthy people and you have a reasonable expectation of privacy and the opposition cannot find out what you said then that proved the point that you have a reasonable expectation to privacy.
"Plaintiff has no legitimate reasonable expectation of privacy" Why? I assume that it means that Facebook is not really private, but if that was true then you would not need a court order to get access to it.
That quote makes it sound like he died. Apparently he lived with no major disabilities. it sounded like he was just very ungly afterwards and had seizors, but retained similar mental capabilities.
Well it might be hard to believe that it could work or that it is even feasible to accomplish if they had a working deodorant, but I find it easy to believe that a government would waste $600,000.
But these rules you are speaking about are for protecting commercial planes form hijacking. Obviously it is possible to transport weapons by plane, they do it all the time. and obviously Steve Jobs is not going to hijack his own plane.
So as long as they are not worrying about smuggling their is no reason to restrict what goes on a private plane.
The phone already taps the energy of sound, if their was no energy in the sound then the microphone would not be able to pick up the sound waves and send the information on.
But even assuming that they can get the device to convert the power to small enough it does not matter, you would need a wide receiver, as the energy dissipates in all directions at a squared rate. and I would think that even if you converted all the power it would still not even be close to enough. think about it, you are basically saying the energy taken from a person speaking normally could be used for the same voice to be heard miles away, does not sound like it follows the laws of conservation of energy unless you think that it will be operating at 100% efficiency.
I do not know how it works in the USA, but even in countries that have general freedom and specifically freedom of speech that is not necessarily true.
In Canada for example we have Freedom of speech, as long as we do not offend anyone. But of course everyone always just quotes the first part and i do not think most people even realize that we actually do not even have a little freedom of speech.
I try not to listen to US news, it is a very strange form of news. And the weirdest things are always going on in your country, I do not think I could take the strain of staying up to date with the specifics of America news.
Well the main reasons would problem not help you. and in general the ideas for saving/making money are the same if you go to school or not.
but here they are:
Don't ever rent if you can borrow enough to make the down payment on housing. then you can rent out rooms to more then cover the mortgage payments (this would most likely be depended on the location of the housing). (especially do not rent housing from the university, big ripoff, (this would be dependent of the university of course))
The big saver is never to eat out do any type of entertainment that costs money. this alone must more then double my fellow students cost to go to school. Something as simple as not buying coffee everyday can save you over 600 dollars a year.
Getting work from the schools coop is very profitable, and you can expect far more money then from looking for a job yourself (at least for Waterloo).
And I do not know how scholarships work in the US, but in Canada with a moderate amount of effort is is easy to get lots of loans and be given lots of money for schooling.
But living in Canada was probably what made it possible, I believe it costs far more to go to a good school in the USA.
"Income is the main reason for poverty" Ok, but I still disagree that income in the main reason for poverty, I am am talking about standard of living poverty, not poverty as a statistic in where if you make under a certain amount you are living in poverty. It is true I do not know many specifics about the US this might only hold in Canada.
I did not think it was so bad in the US. especially the money for lawyers, are you saying that even if you do not do anything stupid or illegal you still have a good chance of having to spend lots of money to prevent going to jail?
If it is so bad in the US why live their? their are many places you could likely go that your freedom and health would not be dependent on making over 2 times the national average.
I disagree that income is the mean reason for ghettos.
and I know growing up within a mid sized family with an income far far less then that and never wanting for anything, and still in my opinion a significant portion of the money being spent on things that we could easily do without.
If you are greedy and materialistic you will never have enough, if you are not then you could never even come up with ways to spend nearly 75K.
And I will try to debunk some of those other examples you mentioned.
Quality education: I now attend the university of Waterloo, considered by many to be the best university in Canada, and significantly more expensive then others in this country. With some good planning my family managed to send me here, and I would estimate the whole thing (3 years now) has actually make us money even without factoring in the small amount of paid work I have done here and only minimal scholarships. So for me, education is not free, it is a net gain.
Retirement: My parents, still quite young, have considered retiring soon. and after some though it become clear they could easily live on a few thousand a year that they could easily make doing nothing.
Marriage: I agree, but who does not have a few hundred dollars. My sister just got married, and I would doubt that more then $300 was spend by the family on the occasion.
It all depends on intelligence and your level of materialism, personally I probably only spend about $80 dollars a year above food.
Healthcare: In Canada it mostly is, not that I ever go to doctors anyways.
Safe Neighborhoods: My entire family lives in very very safe neighbourhoods. and for example my place nets a pretty good profit.
Slashdot Mirror
Nothing is infallible.
and he is very careful.
He often/always finds the dead bodies and often/always gets confessions.
"he can't get enough evidence to convict the person in a court of law but he can get enough to be utterly certain they deserve to be tortured and killed?"
I am pretty sure he always has enough evidence to convict them, the problem being that most of it is obtained illegally and he does not want to get them convicted, he wants to kill them.
and he does not torture, he confronts them with their crimes and then with a single strike kills them.
And the law fails all the time, and in my opinion is not necessarily better at judging the right of wrong of things then a single person.
it looks like only 2 students will get any money (and only one gets much).
I find it strange that while we know that this happened to all the students only one or two of them gets any compensation.
I admit that he is a anti hero, but the definition of that is so lose most protagonists fit into it.
but he is not amoral and not a real anti hero.
"but he's got no qualms in letting anyone die or killing someone to be the one surviving a situation"
Where do you get this from?
This is something he would say, but their is no evidence for it.
In all the films he often goes out of his way and puts himself into danger to save others.
and sure he is willing and able to kill others, but the only examples you see are him killing bad people who are trying to kill him or other people.
I am a huge Riddick fan, and believe I have seen every people of media that relates to him and I do not remember him ever killing when it was not in self defence.
And sure he talks a tough game, multiple times saying keep out of my way and keep up or I will leave you behind, but he always comes back to save the stragglers (or at least all the ones the watchers are supposed to care about).
He is really not even close to a villain in my book.
Dexter only kills people who kill lots of other people.
So the only thing he does wrong is not to conform to the laws of his country, which is not a moral issue.
Therefore, in my opinion, he is not evil in any meaning of the word.
Now their are a few examples that could be used to cast him as a villain. Season 5 Episode 1 for example where he kills one person that just acted very rude and aggressive and appeared to be a fully bad person (but who knows, the killed person might just of had a bad day). And their is the fact that he apparently likes killing people, but then I would never condemn someone for their thoughts (and it is made quite obvious he would feel horrible if he ever killed a innocent).
So I do not think he could be considered a villain from anyone who was not confused.
In my opinion anti hero's are in general not made as good as they could be by making them far too good.
For example Dexter would never kill an innocent even if not killing them would endanger him, any real person in his situation almost certainly would.
And Riddick is considered a anti hero simply because he is scary and does not go around saying please and thank you.
The only protagonist on any show or movie I have ever watched that was a true anti hero/villain and never stopped being one was Kira in the animated series/movies Death Note.
With the protagonist of Code Geass coming really close and only potentially losing that title by a hair because of the last episode.
OK i guess record probably just means piece of data, meaning every single person would have many.
As far as I can tell the population of the USA (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=population+of+USA) is around 312 million.
Which is not even close to 2 billion....
So how can the US be monitoring over 6 times it population?
I completely disagree it is not the realm of philosophers. philosophers cannot give us probabilities of the likelihood of other life on other planets, that has to do with chemistry and physics.
and that figure (200,000-300,000) I assume if a absolute maximum, and would likely be completely unfeasible.
It very well might not take into account many management problems, like just because you transfered 10 people to a planet does not mean they will be able to accomplish much in terms of population growth or building (even though the species will be growing back on planet earth).
and eventually if we are relying on the population growth from earth (or other early plants) for the figure then their is the problem of earth running out of materials to build space craft and just being far away from uninhabited planets.
and that is not even mentioning that trips would take at the minimum a little less then 1 lifetime (so who would even want to go to another planet if it means spending your entire life on a spaceship).
and when inhabiting many planets their would be a big risk of some of them being bombarded by apocalypse sized asteroids or other planet killing phenomenon.
and that figure seems like it would require a lot of procreation, and if that were to continue even a few hundred years after empty planets ran out then the entire race could have some serious population problems.
So basically I am saying that would take a lot of luck, a completely dominate totalitarian government that lasts the entire 200,000-300,000 years, a really strong desire to populate the entire galaxy, and probably some technology to freeze people during transport so that they do not run out of food (and so that they do not have to spend their entire life aboard a spacecraft).
Well I never liked the idea of of leaning towards were you want to go, sounded to easy to drive off a cliff by accident to me.
But does science not basically say: yes their is most likely a lot of life out their, but with with the maximum speed being light and with the planets so far away we are unlikely to find any unless we have expanded to many many planets and long distance space flight become common (meaning most likely thousands of years from now minimum).
Thoe we or them could just get lucky and some of the first planets we try could have life. But at least for us that will not likely be for a few hundred years and it would almost certainly be unmanned.
But then if we have the chance, no matter how small, of discovering alien life within a few hundred years then their is no reason that an Alien civilization could not do it with us right now.
And it is all well and good to elect someone to be the first person to speak with them. But if they ever did show up it would be such an important event that I would not be surprised if someone important like the leader of the country they land in takes over the job.
And can an argument not be made that you need to tell parents everything to have a healthy relationship or the same for a close confidant/friend.
and if it is so important that the opposition has information why not just make it so that even if he has told no one that he is still legally required to tell the court.
That is a horrible definition of privacy.
and if their are exceptions, why not others.
Why would you not be able to tell your mother or other trusted confidants.
Also you should be able to expect the lvl of privacy that you use.
if you tell X people, and the opposition finds out what you told them then, sure they can use that information.
but if you tell trustworthy people and you have a reasonable expectation of privacy and the opposition cannot find out what you said then that proved the point that you have a reasonable expectation to privacy.
And you are not completely free, many games will require you not have stuff like daemon tools installed.
"Plaintiff has no legitimate reasonable expectation of privacy"
Why?
I assume that it means that Facebook is not really private, but if that was true then you would not need a court order to get access to it.
I follow gaming a lot and I know for a fact that the PC does not support many major games.
That quote makes it sound like he died.
Apparently he lived with no major disabilities.
it sounded like he was just very ungly afterwards and had seizors, but retained similar mental capabilities.
Well it might be hard to believe that it could work or that it is even feasible to accomplish if they had a working deodorant, but I find it easy to believe that a government would waste $600,000.
But these rules you are speaking about are for protecting commercial planes form hijacking.
Obviously it is possible to transport weapons by plane, they do it all the time.
and obviously Steve Jobs is not going to hijack his own plane.
So as long as they are not worrying about smuggling their is no reason to restrict what goes on a private plane.
The phone already taps the energy of sound, if their was no energy in the sound then the microphone would not be able to pick up the sound waves and send the information on.
But even assuming that they can get the device to convert the power to small enough it does not matter, you would need a wide receiver, as the energy dissipates in all directions at a squared rate.
and I would think that even if you converted all the power it would still not even be close to enough.
think about it, you are basically saying the energy taken from a person speaking normally could be used for the same voice to be heard miles away, does not sound like it follows the laws of conservation of energy unless you think that it will be operating at 100% efficiency.
I believe it is called an expansion pack, they just wanted to reduce the number of characters in the /. title I think.
And I believe this is the third expansion, so their is little chance that any of the stuff in it was going to be in the original game.
Well not necessarily.
I do not know how it works in the USA, but even in countries that have general freedom and specifically freedom of speech that is not necessarily true.
In Canada for example we have Freedom of speech, as long as we do not offend anyone.
But of course everyone always just quotes the first part and i do not think most people even realize that we actually do not even have a little freedom of speech.
I try not to listen to US news, it is a very strange form of news.
And the weirdest things are always going on in your country, I do not think I could take the strain of staying up to date with the specifics of America news.
Well the main reasons would problem not help you. and in general the ideas for saving/making money are the same if you go to school or not.
but here they are:
Don't ever rent if you can borrow enough to make the down payment on housing. then you can rent out rooms to more then cover the mortgage payments (this would most likely be depended on the location of the housing). (especially do not rent housing from the university, big ripoff, (this would be dependent of the university of course))
The big saver is never to eat out do any type of entertainment that costs money. this alone must more then double my fellow students cost to go to school. Something as simple as not buying coffee everyday can save you over 600 dollars a year.
Getting work from the schools coop is very profitable, and you can expect far more money then from looking for a job yourself (at least for Waterloo).
And I do not know how scholarships work in the US, but in Canada with a moderate amount of effort is is easy to get lots of loans and be given lots of money for schooling.
But living in Canada was probably what made it possible, I believe it costs far more to go to a good school in the USA.
"Income is the main reason for poverty"
Ok, but I still disagree that income in the main reason for poverty, I am am talking about standard of living poverty, not poverty as a statistic in where if you make under a certain amount you are living in poverty.
It is true I do not know many specifics about the US this might only hold in Canada.
I did not think it was so bad in the US.
especially the money for lawyers, are you saying that even if you do not do anything stupid or illegal you still have a good chance of having to spend lots of money to prevent going to jail?
If it is so bad in the US why live their? their are many places you could likely go that your freedom and health would not be dependent on making over 2 times the national average.
I disagree that income is the mean reason for ghettos.
and I know growing up within a mid sized family with an income far far less then that and never wanting for anything, and still in my opinion a significant portion of the money being spent on things that we could easily do without.
If you are greedy and materialistic you will never have enough, if you are not then you could never even come up with ways to spend nearly 75K.
And I will try to debunk some of those other examples you mentioned.
Quality education:
I now attend the university of Waterloo, considered by many to be the best university in Canada, and significantly more expensive then others in this country.
With some good planning my family managed to send me here, and I would estimate the whole thing (3 years now) has actually make us money even without factoring in the small amount of paid work I have done here and only minimal scholarships.
So for me, education is not free, it is a net gain.
Retirement:
My parents, still quite young, have considered retiring soon. and after some though it become clear they could easily live on a few thousand a year that they could easily make doing nothing.
Marriage:
I agree, but who does not have a few hundred dollars.
My sister just got married, and I would doubt that more then $300 was spend by the family on the occasion.
It all depends on intelligence and your level of materialism, personally I probably only spend about $80 dollars a year above food.
Healthcare:
In Canada it mostly is, not that I ever go to doctors anyways.
Safe Neighborhoods:
My entire family lives in very very safe neighbourhoods. and for example my place nets a pretty good profit.