About point #3: The Muslim growth rate IS much higher than the growth rate of developed nations as a whole, and Muslims in Western and European nations OVERWHELMINGLY favor Sharia law.
A recent poll shows that 36% of Muslims in the U.K. support the death penalty for any Muslim apostate. That's extremism, and it has far too wide of support within a certain community. If you can't confront an ideology because it is associated with a religion, or with a culture, you are bound to have that ideology spread without meaningful resistance. The prosecution of "hate speech" without an incitement to violence is a war on ideology, where one side is demanding that the other drop their weapons and run.
When a third of Muslims in civilized nations support DEATH for those who leave their religion, and half of the blacks in America either believe the government created AIDS or are unsure if they did, there is a disturbing spread of ideas that must be opposed. The removal of repudiation of ideals, simply because those ideas are associated with a religion or culture, feels nice to some, but silences others.
Also note that this is not just academic, because our (possible) next president was born to a Muslim father and left Islam for irreligiosity at a young age. Though most do not support the death penalty for prepubescent apostates, some do.
The restriction of criticism of religion or cultures, in any form, does not contribute to, and has no place in, a society that allows it's participants to choose from a marketplace of ideas.
The marketplace of ideas should not be a single podium, but a bazaar.
The US Navy is by no means stretched any thinner than it needs to be. The only drain on our default deployments is that we have a carrier task force in the Persian Gulf as a reminder to Iran right now.
I'm not sure, but it might be considered a substantive difference, as far as medical ethics go, that this study uses volunteers and keeps them alive and the other used prisoners and killed them.
If oil companies were only earning a profit of 10,000%, just the taxes on their profits would solve all the worlds problems. No one in the chain from drilling to refining to (especially not) retail makes a 10,000% profit. A 10,000% profit would mean that it is possible to deliver refined $4 gas to your home for 4 cents a gallon. The oil companies' profits are actually quite low considering all the efficiency gains that come from plentiful and easily accessible energy.
There are people who enjoy getting their nuts stepped on too. To each his own I guess. Really? Show me one. People who love Microsoft products, use Visual Studio to develop C# code, run Vista and swear up and down that they've never had any problems with it, and have purchased a Zune.
That's 4 right there.
That's not legal analysis, it's the facts of the case and my opinion. He presented half of the facts along with his opinion, and I showed where he was right and wrong. But thanks for filing me in, AC.
Lets just destroy your ill-informed argument that McDonald's was irresponsible in serving their hot coffee hot.
You say the woman was severely burned by the coffee which was between 180 and 190 degrees. That is a stipulated fact, McDonald's coffee is served hot. Is it dangerously hot? It caused severe damage, so it was obviously dangerous. Was it irresponsibly hot?
Anyone purchasing coffee can have a reasonable expectation that it will be dangerously hot. The recommended serving temperature of coffee is from 180-185 degrees Fahrenheit. This is not considerably less than the 180-190 degree temperature at which McDonald's is established to have served coffee.
She did suffer bodily injury as a result of spilling McDonald's coffee on herself, but the culpability here does not rest on McDonald's. Just as with a set of steak knives, coffee is inherently dangerous.
What of the claim that McDonald's had foreknowledge of the danger inherent in their product and did nothing to warn consumers of that danger? Contrary to a common misconception, McDonald's coffee cups already contained the CAUTION:HOT disclaimer that has become so ubiquitous these days.
So we are left with a transaction that caused an injury forseeable to all parties involved, one which was a risk inherent to the use of the product. Was this risk known to be substantially higher for McDonald's coffee than, say, a power drill or a set of steak knives?
To determine if McDonald's coffee is irresponsibly dangerous, it is highly informative to look at the history of the product. You have already informed us that McDonald's had over 700 reports over the last decade of coffee inflicted burns requiring medical attention, for which they had already paid about $500k. This means that 1 person, every 5 days, over the period of 10 years, was burned badly enough to require medical attention. Over that same 5 days, selling an inherently dangerous item at or about industry standards, McDonald's would have sold 24 million cups of coffee. If I sell an inherently dangerous product that results in paying out a claim to 1 of every 24 million people I sell one to, I wouldn't expect to labeled as behaving irresponsibly.
In summation:
1) Coffee is dangerously hot.
2) Everyone knows the coffee is dangerously hot.
3) Despite serving a dangerously hot product to anyone who wanted it, McDonald's' product caused an injury they paid money for after every 23,999,999 cups.
I don't know about you, but I don't expect to drink coffee that I can dump on myself and not expect to be severely injured by.
Beware of Wikipedia links to a single character in a fictional universe. Your lunch break will disappear after 50 minutes of interested clicking, and you will know more than you ever needed to know about the Marvel universe.
All else being equal, high food prices:
1) Help those countries which export more food than they import.
2) Hurt those countries that import more food than they export.
I think religion is 100% shit and the people who sell it should be imprisoned for false advertisement. You, sir, are the reason all us bitter blue-collar workers cling to our guns.
That'd be a great idea, except for the fact that even a rudimentary workaround such as the one you describe is, in fact, illegal because of the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA. There is no exception for circumvention done for the purpose of fair uses, such as playing your music in your car, or even making a backup copy. Even though the right to perform actions such as these is guaranteed in the Audio Home Recording Act, the DMCA allows anyone producing any copyrighted content (read anyone) to make it illegal to do anything with it in any form other than that which is prescribed by the producer.
Also the same guy who wrote Legend of the Red Dragon, if you guys recall BBSing back in the early 90's. So the key to affordable game design is to make games to the standard of the early 90's and have the cool nickname of "Wiz."
Slashdot Mirror
About point #3: The Muslim growth rate IS much higher than the growth rate of developed nations as a whole, and Muslims in Western and European nations OVERWHELMINGLY favor Sharia law.
A recent poll shows that 36% of Muslims in the U.K. support the death penalty for any Muslim apostate. That's extremism, and it has far too wide of support within a certain community. If you can't confront an ideology because it is associated with a religion, or with a culture, you are bound to have that ideology spread without meaningful resistance. The prosecution of "hate speech" without an incitement to violence is a war on ideology, where one side is demanding that the other drop their weapons and run.
When a third of Muslims in civilized nations support DEATH for those who leave their religion, and half of the blacks in America either believe the government created AIDS or are unsure if they did, there is a disturbing spread of ideas that must be opposed. The removal of repudiation of ideals, simply because those ideas are associated with a religion or culture, feels nice to some, but silences others.
Also note that this is not just academic, because our (possible) next president was born to a Muslim father and left Islam for irreligiosity at a young age. Though most do not support the death penalty for prepubescent apostates, some do.
The restriction of criticism of religion or cultures, in any form, does not contribute to, and has no place in, a society that allows it's participants to choose from a marketplace of ideas.
The marketplace of ideas should not be a single podium, but a bazaar.
The US Navy is by no means stretched any thinner than it needs to be. The only drain on our default deployments is that we have a carrier task force in the Persian Gulf as a reminder to Iran right now.
I'm not sure, but it might be considered a substantive difference, as far as medical ethics go, that this study uses volunteers and keeps them alive and the other used prisoners and killed them.
Nice Godwin, BTW.
If oil companies were only earning a profit of 10,000%, just the taxes on their profits would solve all the worlds problems. No one in the chain from drilling to refining to (especially not) retail makes a 10,000% profit. A 10,000% profit would mean that it is possible to deliver refined $4 gas to your home for 4 cents a gallon. The oil companies' profits are actually quite low considering all the efficiency gains that come from plentiful and easily accessible energy.
Please don't make me tell you the list again.
That's not legal analysis, it's the facts of the case and my opinion. He presented half of the facts along with his opinion, and I showed where he was right and wrong. But thanks for filing me in, AC.
Lets just destroy your ill-informed argument that McDonald's was irresponsible in serving their hot coffee hot.
You say the woman was severely burned by the coffee which was between 180 and 190 degrees. That is a stipulated fact, McDonald's coffee is served hot. Is it dangerously hot? It caused severe damage, so it was obviously dangerous. Was it irresponsibly hot?
Anyone purchasing coffee can have a reasonable expectation that it will be dangerously hot. The recommended serving temperature of coffee is from 180-185 degrees Fahrenheit. This is not considerably less than the 180-190 degree temperature at which McDonald's is established to have served coffee.
She did suffer bodily injury as a result of spilling McDonald's coffee on herself, but the culpability here does not rest on McDonald's. Just as with a set of steak knives, coffee is inherently dangerous.
What of the claim that McDonald's had foreknowledge of the danger inherent in their product and did nothing to warn consumers of that danger? Contrary to a common misconception, McDonald's coffee cups already contained the CAUTION:HOT disclaimer that has become so ubiquitous these days. So we are left with a transaction that caused an injury forseeable to all parties involved, one which was a risk inherent to the use of the product. Was this risk known to be substantially higher for McDonald's coffee than, say, a power drill or a set of steak knives?
To determine if McDonald's coffee is irresponsibly dangerous, it is highly informative to look at the history of the product. You have already informed us that McDonald's had over 700 reports over the last decade of coffee inflicted burns requiring medical attention, for which they had already paid about $500k. This means that 1 person, every 5 days, over the period of 10 years, was burned badly enough to require medical attention. Over that same 5 days, selling an inherently dangerous item at or about industry standards, McDonald's would have sold 24 million cups of coffee. If I sell an inherently dangerous product that results in paying out a claim to 1 of every 24 million people I sell one to, I wouldn't expect to labeled as behaving irresponsibly.
In summation:
1) Coffee is dangerously hot.
2) Everyone knows the coffee is dangerously hot.
3) Despite serving a dangerously hot product to anyone who wanted it, McDonald's' product caused an injury they paid money for after every 23,999,999 cups.
I don't know about you, but I don't expect to drink coffee that I can dump on myself and not expect to be severely injured by.
I think it's in Verizon notation.
Mod parent informative. The HDR they used in this movie is a genuine "big deal" in videography. It's like Deep Focus in Citizen Kane.
Heh. You saw Definitely Maybe.
I'm still disappointed they didn't stick with The Hoff.
As soon as I saw Nick Fury I immediately shouted "It's The HOFF!" Alas, it was Samuel L. Jackson.
Not everyone comes from Boston.
Beware of Wikipedia links to a single character in a fictional universe. Your lunch break will disappear after 50 minutes of interested clicking, and you will know more than you ever needed to know about the Marvel universe.
Whoosh...
All else being equal, high food prices: 1) Help those countries which export more food than they import. 2) Hurt those countries that import more food than they export.
Quick, somebody call Verizon! They're selling sugar for a .025 cents per pound!
Where's BadAnalogyGuy when you need him? Won't somebody please think of the children?
That'd be a great idea, except for the fact that even a rudimentary workaround such as the one you describe is, in fact, illegal because of the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA. There is no exception for circumvention done for the purpose of fair uses, such as playing your music in your car, or even making a backup copy. Even though the right to perform actions such as these is guaranteed in the Audio Home Recording Act, the DMCA allows anyone producing any copyrighted content (read anyone) to make it illegal to do anything with it in any form other than that which is prescribed by the producer.
I know it's also not huge, but I gotta represent the hometown (Salem, OR) and link to Dink.
Dink Smallwood
Also the same guy who wrote Legend of the Red Dragon, if you guys recall BBSing back in the early 90's. So the key to affordable game design is to make games to the standard of the early 90's and have the cool nickname of "Wiz."
Oh, SNAP!
We have always been at war with Eastasia.