It boils down to this you can't say man kind has free will and turn around and say God guided the editing of the scriptures. Man wrote the book and even if I do believe in a God I do not believe in the bible, man wrote the book and the book is fictitious and flawed as with the ideals of it's writers.
Actually to get a 1-100 roll in WoW you can just/roll
Re:What to do with our corporeal remains
on
A Geek Funeral
·
· Score: 1
Lo there do I see my father.
Lo there do I see my mother and my sisters and my brothers.
Lo there do I see the line of my people back to the beginning.
Lo they do call to me, they bid me to take my place among them, in the hallowed halls of Valhalla where the brave shall live forever!
Desire has nothing to do with it it's a simple matter, if they want software treated as a hard good is then they need to support it like a hard good. A tire manufacturer who is still making the same classic x model tire still has to support their warranty on the new one as they did on the old ones despite the fact that the mold is over 15 years old... If you're still manufacturing and selling the same product despite the fact it's design is 15 years old you support it as if it was new. Now if these copies of XP were just leftovers on the shelf from an old stamping that's different as the products individual age is great and support ended a long time ago for it. However Microsoft continues to manufacture and has given what equates to a manufacturing guarantee of service and support for the aging operating system. They have an ethical and in some cases legal obligation to follow through with that guarantee.
Well that would be illegal but/shrug that never stopped them before. The presidents these days think they can sign an executive order even if it is in conflict with the constitution.
Ah yes the ever dangerous passive freethinkers. You never know when they might sit down for a few hours and refuse to go to war. Or when they might decide to stand still for a while in protest to a unlawful imprisonment or other injustice. They wield terribly dangerous weapons called words and since they tend to actually think about things they sometimes bring up points that make the great and all-knowing ruling body look as if they do not really know anything. We must stop such people for if they succeed they will make the world a better place and as a better place our power derived from fear mongering will diminish./sarcasm
Damn straight! And if someone wants to remove the catalytic converter and muffler from his car, that should be legal too! Fuck the environment and the neighbors!
And, if someone wants to roll back an odometer, that should be legal. Caveat emptor, baby.
And, if someone wants to remove the seat belts in his car. Who cares if he and/or his passengers die?
Fuck all these laws that control how we use stuff we own!
Catalytic converters are for environmental protection and smog control which is to the benefit and safety of all people. Mufflers protect people from damagingly loud exhaust systems.
Rolling back of an odometer is an honesty in sale doctrine. A car with significantly higher mileage can be a safety hazard as there are certain things that need to be checked every so many miles. Not to mention the additional wear and tear on the vehicle.
This one is hard to argue about requiring someone to protect the life of themselves is one thing. However requiring him to protect the safety of his passengers is another requiring only passenger seat belts seems a reasonable compromise assuming someone wants to be suicidal. The same thing could be said of helmets.
These don't really control the things we own but the manor in which they operate. That is you can remove all those devices (with the possible exception of the catalytic converter)if you want and not get into trouble. It's when you attempt to operate these things on public roads that it is actually illegal as you endanger the public safety.
You seem to be missing the point it's not a safety issue it's a control issue. All of the issues you listed are safety related. The modification of an electronic so long as it is done for private purpose and only used in private environments should never be illegal. (Note I did not say that this should have to be modified by a private individual after all so long as it's not operated in close relation to the public it poses no danger.) Unless it can somehow be proven that it is a danger to public safety. The only real examples I could think of is modifying an electronic device so it causes harmful interference or randomly shoots electricity or lasers at people. In general it's my belief that if it has no considerable effects on the day to day operations of society (excluding purely economic trivialities) there is no reason you shouldn't be able to modify your own devices.
I have never liked the word Homeland especially in reference to security and police forces. It reminds me a bit too much of the word fatherland. Which in turn reminds me why the Godwin rule has developed in the first place.
This argument in my mind is the equivalent of (to use a car analogy) I want you to share your knowledge on how to build an engine. But I won't share any of my information on how to build a car. This way I can build my car using your engine designs and make money without ever contributing back.
And politicians don't get paid by lobbyists to make certain laws. That's called a bribe. Just because it's illegal doesn't mean it's not happening they simply pay for advertising or promote a concert and provide artists where the station gets a big cut. To think that radio stations don't get paid by the recording industry to play certain songs over others is to live in a dream world where everyone follows the spirit of the law and not just the letter.
I see a bunch of basic issues with the entire paradox and it's assumptions.
1. It assumes that radio signal based communication is the first major communication style developed/discovered by a civilization. It's entirely possible that based on different environmental factors they were never able to get it to work in a reliable manner or through the magic of scientific breakthrough ended up with a different or superior communication style.
2. Any number of religious or cultural decisions could get in the way.
3. We assume that civilizations existed before we did and therefore their signals should be reaching us by now. They could be just now getting to the point we are. It could be assumed that a period of say 1-2 million years were optimal for development of life in our galaxy we simply don't have enough information.
4. Due to additive and subtractive properties of radio waves there could be a significant amount of variables in play interfering with signals. We shouldn't assume that just because it has a straight line to us a signal won't have issues. We have significant issues of our own keeping our own signals clear from solar flares and everyday cosmic radiation.
5. No matter how good we are at math if we base our calculations on what is essentially flawed data we will always draw the wrong conclusions. Hell we're constantly rewriting laws rules and constants in everyday physics. Until we can easily measure things on a galactic scale all this conjecture is little more than armchair quarterbacking. And since it is negative and discourages discovery it is especially harmful to put any value to it.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah but the original code was well optimized we've only been messing with the codebase for the last few hundred years.
Bah that hasn't happened in the first world for a few hundred years how do we know if it even works anymore.
Well as all monarchies eventually corrupt by sheer weight of power... Would you rather live in a corrupt monarchy or a corrupt democracy?
Yes because the bible was in no way edited and redacted edited again and translated.
http://www.awitness.org/nt/ntvary.html
mmmk?
It boils down to this you can't say man kind has free will and turn around and say God guided the editing of the scriptures. Man wrote the book and even if I do believe in a God I do not believe in the bible, man wrote the book and the book is fictitious and flawed as with the ideals of it's writers.
Yes it is it's a click it and forget it PbAOE so they can add a hurricane in there as well. Starfire is the single target version.
Actually to get a 1-100 roll in WoW you can just /roll
Lo there do I see my father.
Lo there do I see my mother and my sisters and my brothers.
Lo there do I see the line of my people back to the beginning.
Lo they do call to me, they bid me to take my place among them, in the hallowed halls of Valhalla where the brave shall live forever!
Desire has nothing to do with it it's a simple matter, if they want software treated as a hard good is then they need to support it like a hard good. A tire manufacturer who is still making the same classic x model tire still has to support their warranty on the new one as they did on the old ones despite the fact that the mold is over 15 years old... If you're still manufacturing and selling the same product despite the fact it's design is 15 years old you support it as if it was new. Now if these copies of XP were just leftovers on the shelf from an old stamping that's different as the products individual age is great and support ended a long time ago for it. However Microsoft continues to manufacture and has given what equates to a manufacturing guarantee of service and support for the aging operating system. They have an ethical and in some cases legal obligation to follow through with that guarantee.
Wagons aren't supposed to have legs they have wheels e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wagon
Also what does a wagon that takes a band to a gig have to do with software?
Well I'm not sure is Uldum going to be an 85 instance one would assume so.
But if history serves it won't always be hostile territory. See Japan (Hiroshima, Nagasaki)
Either that or they legis... ahem er umm lobby for some immunity.
I believe he would fall under elected official.
Thus the obvious reason they should make a female AI that acts exactly how they program it.
Well that would be illegal but /shrug that never stopped them before. The presidents these days think they can sign an executive order even if it is in conflict with the constitution.
Why are clam fossils at the top of very young mountains?
http://www.mountain.org/education/subexplore/explore02.cfm
It is sort of see: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0105946/quote for the origin of that quote.
Ah yes the ever dangerous passive freethinkers. You never know when they might sit down for a few hours and refuse to go to war. Or when they might decide to stand still for a while in protest to a unlawful imprisonment or other injustice. They wield terribly dangerous weapons called words and since they tend to actually think about things they sometimes bring up points that make the great and all-knowing ruling body look as if they do not really know anything. We must stop such people for if they succeed they will make the world a better place and as a better place our power derived from fear mongering will diminish. /sarcasm
Damn straight! And if someone wants to remove the catalytic converter and muffler from his car, that should be legal too! Fuck the environment and the neighbors!
And, if someone wants to roll back an odometer, that should be legal. Caveat emptor, baby.
And, if someone wants to remove the seat belts in his car. Who cares if he and/or his passengers die?
Fuck all these laws that control how we use stuff we own!
Catalytic converters are for environmental protection and smog control which is to the benefit and safety of all people. Mufflers protect people from damagingly loud exhaust systems.
Rolling back of an odometer is an honesty in sale doctrine. A car with significantly higher mileage can be a safety hazard as there are certain things that need to be checked every so many miles. Not to mention the additional wear and tear on the vehicle.
This one is hard to argue about requiring someone to protect the life of themselves is one thing. However requiring him to protect the safety of his passengers is another requiring only passenger seat belts seems a reasonable compromise assuming someone wants to be suicidal. The same thing could be said of helmets.
These don't really control the things we own but the manor in which they operate. That is you can remove all those devices (with the possible exception of the catalytic converter)if you want and not get into trouble. It's when you attempt to operate these things on public roads that it is actually illegal as you endanger the public safety.
You seem to be missing the point it's not a safety issue it's a control issue. All of the issues you listed are safety related. The modification of an electronic so long as it is done for private purpose and only used in private environments should never be illegal. (Note I did not say that this should have to be modified by a private individual after all so long as it's not operated in close relation to the public it poses no danger.) Unless it can somehow be proven that it is a danger to public safety. The only real examples I could think of is modifying an electronic device so it causes harmful interference or randomly shoots electricity or lasers at people. In general it's my belief that if it has no considerable effects on the day to day operations of society (excluding purely economic trivialities) there is no reason you shouldn't be able to modify your own devices.
I have never liked the word Homeland especially in reference to security and police forces. It reminds me a bit too much of the word fatherland. Which in turn reminds me why the Godwin rule has developed in the first place.
This argument in my mind is the equivalent of (to use a car analogy) I want you to share your knowledge on how to build an engine. But I won't share any of my information on how to build a car. This way I can build my car using your engine designs and make money without ever contributing back.
And politicians don't get paid by lobbyists to make certain laws. That's called a bribe. Just because it's illegal doesn't mean it's not happening they simply pay for advertising or promote a concert and provide artists where the station gets a big cut. To think that radio stations don't get paid by the recording industry to play certain songs over others is to live in a dream world where everyone follows the spirit of the law and not just the letter.
I see a bunch of basic issues with the entire paradox and it's assumptions.
1. It assumes that radio signal based communication is the first major communication style developed/discovered by a civilization. It's entirely possible that based on different environmental factors they were never able to get it to work in a reliable manner or through the magic of scientific breakthrough ended up with a different or superior communication style.
2. Any number of religious or cultural decisions could get in the way.
3. We assume that civilizations existed before we did and therefore their signals should be reaching us by now. They could be just now getting to the point we are. It could be assumed that a period of say 1-2 million years were optimal for development of life in our galaxy we simply don't have enough information.
4. Due to additive and subtractive properties of radio waves there could be a significant amount of variables in play interfering with signals. We shouldn't assume that just because it has a straight line to us a signal won't have issues. We have significant issues of our own keeping our own signals clear from solar flares and everyday cosmic radiation.
5. No matter how good we are at math if we base our calculations on what is essentially flawed data we will always draw the wrong conclusions. Hell we're constantly rewriting laws rules and constants in everyday physics. Until we can easily measure things on a galactic scale all this conjecture is little more than armchair quarterbacking. And since it is negative and discourages discovery it is especially harmful to put any value to it.
/sigh
color/colour
honor/honour
herb/herb
Perhaps you need this http://esl.about.com/library/vocabulary/blbritam.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_resistance
Is it really so hard for people to understand that "An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind."
Sinking to the level of another only lowers one's self.