I'll grant you that the curbing of civil rights (particularly guarantees of the right to keep and bear arms and to unreasonable search and seizure) are probably counter-productive. I'd dealy like to see all of those airport security points dismantled and passengers (after receiving the proper training) allowed to carry concealed firearms on board commercial aricraft.
Still, your logic on picking those European other countries is somewhat suspect. They are not exactly the beacons that draw the ire Islamic militants. It's kind of like writing a malware to attack OS X... what's the point when there are so many more Windows installations out there that will allow your malware to propogate more effectively? Still, Spain did receive special attention largely because of their support of US counter-terrorism operations, and after the Madrid train bombings, the Spanish government withdrew that support.
exemplified by no successful terrorist acts on US soil since 9/11?
So we're the anthrax attacks no terrorist acts?
I think what the OP meant was that there have been no successful terrorist attacks committed by terrorist groups or organizations. Groups imply that communications need to occur and support sought all of which are possible to detect and counter. The anthrax attacks and terrorist attacks like that of Nidal Malik Hasan at Fort Hood were "lone wolf" attacks that are very difficult to detect or counter since they lack those communications or support channels that could be used to detect the planning of such an attack.
You're only looking at a small piece of the puzzle... it's not a simple zero sum game. Somebody either in the record companies or in the RIAA believes that even though their legal fees exceeded the awards they received, the net result is that it will result in profits exceeding the apparent loss of these legal actions. You can perhaps argue that they're guilty of the same sort of math another prominent figure has been touting as being a wise investment; but regardless, the RIAA is unlikely to back down unless they become convinced it becomes a broader losing strategy.
I don't think that's necessarily the way to go. However, as I understand it, Federal law is currently structured to give the USPS a monopoly on letter delivery. The Congress has the power to change the law authorizing non-government entities from directly competing with the USPS in that area. If it did so, then the USPS would have to compete on its own merits and it would either fail or succeed on those merits. Either way, we win.
It is being subsidized by it's competitors FedEx, UPS, and DHL. Why should anyone have to subsidize there own competition?
I agree in principle, but I think you've got your facts mixed up. While we all subsidize the USPS whenever we buy postage stamps and the like, and if Congress authorizes additional subsidies to prop it up, FedEx et al are all in the same boat, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here
Oh, that's right the dumbocrats and rethuglicans prefer a large, communist style government rather than a constitutional government.
Except that same Constitution to which you are referring gives Congress the explicit authority to establish a Postal service. I agree the way it currently exists is braindead, but they have the authority to do it. Oh, and I thought Dumbo was an elephant.
Using the pejorative term stealing for taxation is not helpful.
If it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck...
Attitudes towards taxation like yours resulted in the rolling back of taxes for the wealthy in the early 1980's the only thing it has gotten us is a federal debt that almost equals WWII levels and shit to show for it.
Except that when the tax rates were cut in the 1980's it stimulated economic growth that remained in effect until the end of the Clinton aministration. In fact, by the end of the Reagan Administration, revenue to the Federal government had doubled (over levels that existed at the end of the Carter Administration) but spending had far outstripped the revenue gains. In the 1990's some semblence of Federal spending restraint was instituted (pay-go) allowing for a modest surplus. Bush threw that out the window and Obama has only accelerated it. The debt has ballooned primarily because of massive increases in spending combined with tax policies that slow economic growth rather than help expand it.
I actually agree with your premise that as long as there are people, there will always be a broad spectrum of individual perspectives, beliefs and opinions. I respect that and I’d like to think that, sarcastic comments on/. aside, I normally respect those with different perspectives, skin color, religious views, etc. I’ve taken to heart Dr. King’s dream that America be a place where people are not judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. Furthermore, speaking as a Christian, I believe that the Bible teaches that the proper role of government is to restrain evil, preserve order and promote justice. Therefore, the Civil Rights movement of the 1950’s and 1960’s is very much in line with the Judeo-Christian perspective of the proper role of government where it addressed evil, injustice and disorder. FWIW, I don’t hold with many Libertarian views, at least when it comes to some of the social issues they preach. In particular, most Libertarians fail to acknowledge evil, let alone endorse restraining it.
What I haven’t seen, perhaps because I’m just naïve or ignorant or both, is the kind of widespread systemic racism the Civil Rights movement in the 1950’s and 1960’s successfully addressed. Are there pockets of it? Sure, and as you note there always will be as long as there are people with extreme views who manage to place themselves into positions of authority where those views can become manifest in public policy or practice. The difference between now and then is that there are laws in place that when enforced properly will address those instances.
Where I disagree is with your assertion that a strong Federal government is going to prevent individuals (be they elected officials or the boys in the bar) from making a fool of themselves by using racial slurs without infringing on the Constitutional Rights of everybody. For me, I judge such people based on the content of their character and I find them lacking. But, I don’t need the Federal government to tell me what to think or what to say. Those kinds of issues are much better addressed through application of social pressure of one form or another. If an elected official makes stupid comments or makes bad decisions, there’s recourse for that at the ballot box; go and campaign for his / her opponent, or better yet, run to oppose such people yourself. What we need are people who are willing to place basic decency and moral character before the almighty dollar; people who are willing to sacrifice in order to stand up for what’s right and suffer the consequences for it, as Dr. King did, as Dietrich Bonhoeffer did, as Corrie ten Boom did, as the signers of the Declaration of Independence did.
The government must enforce an equal playing field, or else you will have a caste system form very quickly.
I disagree on two aspects of this. First, the government hasn’t the ability (let alone the authority) to bring about equal outcomes; ultimately a flawed person is going to have to determine where outcomes are dissimilar and decide how to make them equal and that is a very dangerous place to go wandering. I would argue that government can and has addressed systemic injustice that prevented equal access to public accommodations and the like, but that allows for equal opportunities, not equal outcomes. Secondly, the only way the government can “enforce an equal playing field” is to steal from one person and give to another; that is you violate the property rights of the “haves” so that the “have-nots” reap the rewards of another’s work. At that point you’ve got the very caste system you were trying to avoid whereby government bureaucrats (caste 1) decide who gets to be a source (caste 2) and who gets to be a sink (caste 3). With capitalism (properly regulated to restrain evil, preserve order and promote justice), at least, there are
I expect you're refering to the new AZ law that allows law enforcement officials in that state to arrest those suspected violating Federal imigration law (since the feds aren't enforcing those laws), and that specifically prohibits racial profiling. Yeah, I can kind of sort of see your point... if I squint real hard
I have no trouble finding rabidly racist people...
So why don't you exercise some moral courage and do something about? What makes you think the Federal or state or local governments can correct bad behavior? Do you think more legislation at any level is going to do that? Peer pressure is much more effective at leading people both into and out of bad behavior patterns; if you recognize something as wrong, then challenge people, don't just sit there expecting somebody else to take up a cause they don't believe in.
And what will you do when some of these localities start bringing back segregation, or other policies abhorrent to the nation as a whole?
I really wish you people would get over this obsession with racism. If you want to live in the 1950's or 1960's and continue to rehash the civil rights debate, then why don't you try it in Sudan or Suadi Arabia or India or Pakistan or any of the dozens of other countries where people are routinely killed or imprisoned for their beliefs or expressing their opposition to the status quo. The debate is over in the U.S. and I think we all have a good idea of how we're supposed to treat each other... with respect.
I'm not sure they are a publicly traded company. Google Finance has no listing for them and I can find nothing on their public website about becoming an investor. Of course it could be they're held by some other entity that is publicly traded... left as an exercise for the reader.
The Washington Post reports that Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-NY) and Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) have introduced legislation that would require buyers to present identification when purchasing a prepaid cellphone
At least one of those two senators will withdraw support once he realizes this proposed law will discriminate against undocumented migrant workers.
Why are these engines burning for such short times
Two reasons come to mind: 1) At 4,000lbs, they don't hold enough fuel to run the engine for more than 200 seconds. 2) The various loads overwhelm the airctaft structure which subsequently disintegrates. Not sure which one, but I'd put my money on 1.
Re:Idle's the right place for this...
on
Happy Towel Day
·
· Score: 1
Dawkins may be a fine scientist as evidenced by his education and his scientific accomplishments. When he tries to apply scientific principles to matters of theology, which is what he does every time he claims in a scientific context that there is no God, he violates that distinction... he makes a theological claim, which, as you point out, should have no bearing on the validity of a scientific theory.
But saying that if rationalism reigns supreme among philosophies logic must be able to prove it is correct is rather silly.
And you have captured the point I was trying to make quite well... Reductio ad absurdum.
Re:Idle's the right place for this...
on
Happy Towel Day
·
· Score: 1
I can't speak for the others, but you sure showed me.
Re:Idle's the right place for this...
on
Happy Towel Day
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Except I never claimed to be particularly tolerant; I'm not... at least not in the way you and the politically correct crowd want. The whole notion of tolerance has been co-opted by people of your ilk who don't want to be held accountable for your bad decisions. You preach tolerance on the one hand, and expect that the world bow down on the altar of tolerance and when some chose not to, when they have the audacity to disagree with you, you get up on your high horse and shout "blasphemy!" as you have so aptly demonstrated. Thank you for your example. You serve your cause well.
Re:Idle's the right place for this...
on
Happy Towel Day
·
· Score: 1
Funny. Perhaps you should read your sig block.
Re:Idle's the right place for this...
on
Happy Towel Day
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I don't think philosophies need to be proved. Yet Dawkins seems to believe that atheistic rationalism reigns supreme among philophies. If that's the case, then by appealing to rationalism, logic should be able to prove that rationalism is correct. Show me the proof.
I guess when he's done with that, he can appeal to rationalism to prove to me that he exists.
Re:Idle's the right place for this...
on
Happy Towel Day
·
· Score: 1
He contends that faith (belief in something that cannot be proven) is fraudulent, while arguing from and promoting a philosophy that cannot be proven (atheism).
Idle's the right place for this...
on
Happy Towel Day
·
· Score: -1, Flamebait
Slashdot Mirror
I'll grant you that the curbing of civil rights (particularly guarantees of the right to keep and bear arms and to unreasonable search and seizure) are probably counter-productive. I'd dealy like to see all of those airport security points dismantled and passengers (after receiving the proper training) allowed to carry concealed firearms on board commercial aricraft.
Still, your logic on picking those European other countries is somewhat suspect. They are not exactly the beacons that draw the ire Islamic militants. It's kind of like writing a malware to attack OS X ... what's the point when there are so many more Windows installations out there that will allow your malware to propogate more effectively? Still, Spain did receive special attention largely because of their support of US counter-terrorism operations, and after the Madrid train bombings, the Spanish government withdrew that support.
exemplified by no successful terrorist acts on US soil since 9/11?
So we're the anthrax attacks no terrorist acts?
I think what the OP meant was that there have been no successful terrorist attacks committed by terrorist groups or organizations. Groups imply that communications need to occur and support sought all of which are possible to detect and counter. The anthrax attacks and terrorist attacks like that of Nidal Malik Hasan at Fort Hood were "lone wolf" attacks that are very difficult to detect or counter since they lack those communications or support channels that could be used to detect the planning of such an attack.
That kind of well reasoned, sound argument expressed on /. is not unlike the experience you have every time you try to spit into the wind.
You're only looking at a small piece of the puzzle... it's not a simple zero sum game. Somebody either in the record companies or in the RIAA believes that even though their legal fees exceeded the awards they received, the net result is that it will result in profits exceeding the apparent loss of these legal actions. You can perhaps argue that they're guilty of the same sort of math another prominent figure has been touting as being a wise investment; but regardless, the RIAA is unlikely to back down unless they become convinced it becomes a broader losing strategy.
Just think how much worse that oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico would be if he wasn't on the job.
Abolish the postal service completely.
I don't think that's necessarily the way to go. However, as I understand it, Federal law is currently structured to give the USPS a monopoly on letter delivery. The Congress has the power to change the law authorizing non-government entities from directly competing with the USPS in that area. If it did so, then the USPS would have to compete on its own merits and it would either fail or succeed on those merits. Either way, we win.
It is being subsidized by it's competitors FedEx, UPS, and DHL. Why should anyone have to subsidize there own competition?
I agree in principle, but I think you've got your facts mixed up. While we all subsidize the USPS whenever we buy postage stamps and the like, and if Congress authorizes additional subsidies to prop it up, FedEx et al are all in the same boat, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here
Oh, that's right the dumbocrats and rethuglicans prefer a large, communist style government rather than a constitutional government.
Except that same Constitution to which you are referring gives Congress the explicit authority to establish a Postal service. I agree the way it currently exists is braindead, but they have the authority to do it. Oh, and I thought Dumbo was an elephant.
George Bush's fault.
Using the pejorative term stealing for taxation is not helpful.
If it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck...
Attitudes towards taxation like yours resulted in the rolling back of taxes for the wealthy in the early 1980's the only thing it has gotten us is a federal debt that almost equals WWII levels and shit to show for it.
Except that when the tax rates were cut in the 1980's it stimulated economic growth that remained in effect until the end of the Clinton aministration. In fact, by the end of the Reagan Administration, revenue to the Federal government had doubled (over levels that existed at the end of the Carter Administration) but spending had far outstripped the revenue gains. In the 1990's some semblence of Federal spending restraint was instituted (pay-go) allowing for a modest surplus. Bush threw that out the window and Obama has only accelerated it. The debt has ballooned primarily because of massive increases in spending combined with tax policies that slow economic growth rather than help expand it.
I actually agree with your premise that as long as there are people, there will always be a broad spectrum of individual perspectives, beliefs and opinions. I respect that and I’d like to think that, sarcastic comments on /. aside, I normally respect those with different perspectives, skin color, religious views, etc. I’ve taken to heart Dr. King’s dream that America be a place where people are not judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. Furthermore, speaking as a Christian, I believe that the Bible teaches that the proper role of government is to restrain evil, preserve order and promote justice. Therefore, the Civil Rights movement of the 1950’s and 1960’s is very much in line with the Judeo-Christian perspective of the proper role of government where it addressed evil, injustice and disorder. FWIW, I don’t hold with many Libertarian views, at least when it comes to some of the social issues they preach. In particular, most Libertarians fail to acknowledge evil, let alone endorse restraining it.
What I haven’t seen, perhaps because I’m just naïve or ignorant or both, is the kind of widespread systemic racism the Civil Rights movement in the 1950’s and 1960’s successfully addressed. Are there pockets of it? Sure, and as you note there always will be as long as there are people with extreme views who manage to place themselves into positions of authority where those views can become manifest in public policy or practice. The difference between now and then is that there are laws in place that when enforced properly will address those instances.
Where I disagree is with your assertion that a strong Federal government is going to prevent individuals (be they elected officials or the boys in the bar) from making a fool of themselves by using racial slurs without infringing on the Constitutional Rights of everybody. For me, I judge such people based on the content of their character and I find them lacking. But, I don’t need the Federal government to tell me what to think or what to say. Those kinds of issues are much better addressed through application of social pressure of one form or another. If an elected official makes stupid comments or makes bad decisions, there’s recourse for that at the ballot box; go and campaign for his / her opponent, or better yet, run to oppose such people yourself. What we need are people who are willing to place basic decency and moral character before the almighty dollar; people who are willing to sacrifice in order to stand up for what’s right and suffer the consequences for it, as Dr. King did, as Dietrich Bonhoeffer did, as Corrie ten Boom did, as the signers of the Declaration of Independence did.
The government must enforce an equal playing field, or else you will have a caste system form very quickly.
I disagree on two aspects of this. First, the government hasn’t the ability (let alone the authority) to bring about equal outcomes; ultimately a flawed person is going to have to determine where outcomes are dissimilar and decide how to make them equal and that is a very dangerous place to go wandering. I would argue that government can and has addressed systemic injustice that prevented equal access to public accommodations and the like, but that allows for equal opportunities, not equal outcomes. Secondly, the only way the government can “enforce an equal playing field” is to steal from one person and give to another; that is you violate the property rights of the “haves” so that the “have-nots” reap the rewards of another’s work. At that point you’ve got the very caste system you were trying to avoid whereby government bureaucrats (caste 1) decide who gets to be a source (caste 2) and who gets to be a sink (caste 3). With capitalism (properly regulated to restrain evil, preserve order and promote justice), at least, there are
Arizona?
I expect you're refering to the new AZ law that allows law enforcement officials in that state to arrest those suspected violating Federal imigration law (since the feds aren't enforcing those laws), and that specifically prohibits racial profiling. Yeah, I can kind of sort of see your point... if I squint real hard
I have no trouble finding rabidly racist people...
So why don't you exercise some moral courage and do something about? What makes you think the Federal or state or local governments can correct bad behavior? Do you think more legislation at any level is going to do that? Peer pressure is much more effective at leading people both into and out of bad behavior patterns; if you recognize something as wrong, then challenge people, don't just sit there expecting somebody else to take up a cause they don't believe in.
Name calling? Sure, that's harsh. Not as bad as the Royal Saudi Government beheading Christians, mind you, but yeah, it's harsh.
And what will you do when some of these localities start bringing back segregation, or other policies abhorrent to the nation as a whole?
I really wish you people would get over this obsession with racism. If you want to live in the 1950's or 1960's and continue to rehash the civil rights debate, then why don't you try it in Sudan or Suadi Arabia or India or Pakistan or any of the dozens of other countries where people are routinely killed or imprisoned for their beliefs or expressing their opposition to the status quo. The debate is over in the U.S. and I think we all have a good idea of how we're supposed to treat each other ... with respect.
Are they going to go the way of Go for all of their other development activities?
I'm not sure they are a publicly traded company. Google Finance has no listing for them and I can find nothing on their public website about becoming an investor. Of course it could be they're held by some other entity that is publicly traded ... left as an exercise for the reader.
More competition is always good for the consumer.
The Washington Post reports that Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-NY) and Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) have introduced legislation that would require buyers to present identification when purchasing a prepaid cellphone
At least one of those two senators will withdraw support once he realizes this proposed law will discriminate against undocumented migrant workers.
Except they're not recovering these vehicles for analysis.
That's what datalinks are for.
Why are these engines burning for such short times
Two reasons come to mind:
1) At 4,000lbs, they don't hold enough fuel to run the engine for more than 200 seconds.
2) The various loads overwhelm the airctaft structure which subsequently disintegrates.
Not sure which one, but I'd put my money on 1.
Dawkins may be a fine scientist as evidenced by his education and his scientific accomplishments. When he tries to apply scientific principles to matters of theology, which is what he does every time he claims in a scientific context that there is no God, he violates that distinction... he makes a theological claim, which, as you point out, should have no bearing on the validity of a scientific theory.
But saying that if rationalism reigns supreme among philosophies logic must be able to prove it is correct is rather silly.
And you have captured the point I was trying to make quite well... Reductio ad absurdum.
I can't speak for the others, but you sure showed me.
Except I never claimed to be particularly tolerant; I'm not ... at least not in the way you and the politically correct crowd want. The whole notion of tolerance has been co-opted by people of your ilk who don't want to be held accountable for your bad decisions. You preach tolerance on the one hand, and expect that the world bow down on the altar of tolerance and when some chose not to, when they have the audacity to disagree with you, you get up on your high horse and shout "blasphemy!" as you have so aptly demonstrated. Thank you for your example. You serve your cause well.
Funny. Perhaps you should read your sig block.
I don't think philosophies need to be proved. Yet Dawkins seems to believe that atheistic rationalism reigns supreme among philophies. If that's the case, then by appealing to rationalism, logic should be able to prove that rationalism is correct. Show me the proof.
I guess when he's done with that, he can appeal to rationalism to prove to me that he exists.
He contends that faith (belief in something that cannot be proven) is fraudulent, while arguing from and promoting a philosophy that cannot be proven (atheism).
This year Richard Dawkins...
especially since Richard Dawkins is mentioned.