So, why do you believe in only one god? I think your mind is unable to be open to the idea that there are actually hundreds of gods. It simple doesn't fit neatly your monotheistic model.
So, assign a low priority to those organs and give them only to the patients who would otherwise die waiting. I'm pretty sure being HIV positive beats being dead.
Ditching books to improve on a skill that even machines have doesn't seem a very good use of my time. I prefer to enhance my proficiency on what can't be accomplished by plugging some numbers on Wolfram|Alpha.
For example, reading books is what allowed me to understand your post and compose this reply; even if I'm still deficient in the subject, it has enabled opportunities that would never be available otherwise.
You don't have to hold them to be false. Just not hold any belief either way. If you do not hold a belief in god(s), you're an atheist. You don't have to believe that gods don't exist (that's just strong/gnostic atheism).
I don't dispute that it's irrelevant. I'm saying that you either hold a preposition to be true, or you don't; there's no third state. That's true for a belief in gods and for a belief that is raining in Zimbabwe.
You may not hold a conscious position, but I don't believe it's possible to be neither. Either you hold the preposition "I believe in at least one god" to be true, or you don't. The relevance doesn't come into question.
I don't think about the question unless someone else brings it up - much like you have now - but that doesn't mean I can't reason about my own beliefs (not faith).
(Yes, you may also take the Ignostic position that claims the preposition to be senseless since 'god' is undefined. Nevertheless, there are some more concrete definitions of 'god'. Yahweh, for example).
I have no idea what do you mean by "international law".
As for the US, the SCOTUS said "interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The Copyright Act even employs a separate term of art to define one who misappropriates a copyright: '[...] an infringer of the copyright.'".
I don't know this "first post" book, but I have to agree with the Orwell recommendation. Both 1984 and Animal Farm should be read by everyone.
I also recommend this podcast of Christopher Hitchens discussing Orwell (oh, and Econtalk is nice overall too): http://youtu.be/QSNKP33ph_Q I haven't had a chance to read Why Orwell Matters, though.
It's a great book, no doubt. The fact that protagonist could be a typical/.er (maladapted, love of computers, dislike for office politics, etc) helps, I guess.
Well, there's the US is governed under a regime called "constitutional representative democracy", under which the electorate votes on a set of candidates to form the legislative body, which is then entrusted to find solutions to those issues, preferably non-unconstitutional ones.
Plenty of poeple would easily trade you spots and gladly pay a few dollars if they could have your college education
If they have more money than GP, why can't they?
your mom's secure, respectable job
So, what about people with the same wage but on non-secure, respectable jobs?
We all need to pay for common services. It's really that simple.
On the other hand, forcing him to pay income tax may had very well prevented GP from finishing college (it necessarily would prevent some people), which means he'd probably make a lot less money and, more importantly to this discussion, pay much lower taxes in aggregate in his life, therefore forcing you and others to pay more.
Isn't it a shortsighted policy to force payment by any means, if it actually costs you more in the long run?
Releasing daily is not the same as releasing the same day it was developed. It's just a matter of having a pipeline instead of a dam that bursts every six months.
In my limited experience, users can't handle too many changes at once without despairing and assuming they can't use the application anymore. Regular updates are critical to keep such complaints low.
Java and Flash updates are annoying because the user has to update. Compare with Chrome silent updates; do you really think the user cares if they're on version 13 or 24?
I think small regular updates are better, since the user doesn't login one day, see 3/4 of the application changed, throw up their hands and assume they can't use it anymore.
Small, incremental updates let the user take in changed they can handle.
I pay taxes because the Law would come freeze and take my wages if I didn't. Not really comparable.
As for a mobile plan, I don't pay for one. Why? Because I think it's too expensive for the value it'd get me. Which rather exemplifies my point: if they were getting exploited, they wouldn't invest. The fact that they do proves they still get more out of it than they put in, and in fact, more than anywhere else.
No, they don't get as much as they'd like, but that's not getting exploited, that's just life. I'm sure every wage laborer would like to earn more too, but they're not all getting exploited.
Wasn't the alternative bankruptcy? Did they purposely sabotage the company? Didn't they lose the invested money too? Then why is it paying something being an asshole?
If they are exploited, why do they trade? And why doesn't a competing stock exchange with a "no-HFT" rule appear and takes all the non-HF traders away from the others?
Slashdot Mirror
Which do you value more? Freedom or absence of suffering? Perhaps such a being might value one above the other?
Why would a god have to choose?
So, why do you believe in only one god? I think your mind is unable to be open to the idea that there are actually hundreds of gods. It simple doesn't fit neatly your monotheistic model.
So, assign a low priority to those organs and give them only to the patients who would otherwise die waiting. I'm pretty sure being HIV positive beats being dead.
Being illegal to sell a kidney is stupid too; but even more stupid is having organ donation after death be opt-in instead of opt-out.
Why was this downvoted? A memorial website seems a good idea to me.
Speak for yourself. I don't trust either.
Redundancy improves reliability. It's the same reason why you should keep backups, even though it's a redundant copy of the data.
Ditching books to improve on a skill that even machines have doesn't seem a very good use of my time. I prefer to enhance my proficiency on what can't be accomplished by plugging some numbers on Wolfram|Alpha.
For example, reading books is what allowed me to understand your post and compose this reply; even if I'm still deficient in the subject, it has enabled opportunities that would never be available otherwise.
You don't have to hold them to be false. Just not hold any belief either way. If you do not hold a belief in god(s), you're an atheist. You don't have to believe that gods don't exist (that's just strong/gnostic atheism).
At that level, nobody is actually original. There's only something resembling originality in the outskirts (technical stuff, business models, etc).
I don't dispute that it's irrelevant. I'm saying that you either hold a preposition to be true, or you don't; there's no third state. That's true for a belief in gods and for a belief that is raining in Zimbabwe.
You may not hold a conscious position, but I don't believe it's possible to be neither. Either you hold the preposition "I believe in at least one god" to be true, or you don't. The relevance doesn't come into question.
I don't think about the question unless someone else brings it up - much like you have now - but that doesn't mean I can't reason about my own beliefs (not faith).
(Yes, you may also take the Ignostic position that claims the preposition to be senseless since 'god' is undefined. Nevertheless, there are some more concrete definitions of 'god'. Yahweh, for example).
I have no idea what do you mean by "international law".
As for the US, the SCOTUS said "interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The Copyright Act even employs a separate term of art to define one who misappropriates a copyright: '[...] an infringer of the copyright.'".
No. EULAs are written works much like anything else, and therefore subject to copyright themselves.
The Adolescent is a good read as well.
Just like to point out that atheists claim nothing of a sort. That's just gnostic atheists. We agnostic atheists find them silly too.
I don't know this "first post" book, but I have to agree with the Orwell recommendation. Both 1984 and Animal Farm should be read by everyone.
I also recommend this podcast of Christopher Hitchens discussing Orwell (oh, and Econtalk is nice overall too): http://youtu.be/QSNKP33ph_Q
I haven't had a chance to read Why Orwell Matters, though.
It's a great book, no doubt. The fact that protagonist could be a typical /.er (maladapted, love of computers, dislike for office politics, etc) helps, I guess.
Who decides that?
Well, there's the US is governed under a regime called "constitutional representative democracy", under which the electorate votes on a set of candidates to form the legislative body, which is then entrusted to find solutions to those issues, preferably non-unconstitutional ones.
Plenty of poeple would easily trade you spots and gladly pay a few dollars if they could have your college education
If they have more money than GP, why can't they?
your mom's secure, respectable job
So, what about people with the same wage but on non-secure, respectable jobs?
We all need to pay for common services. It's really that simple.
On the other hand, forcing him to pay income tax may had very well prevented GP from finishing college (it necessarily would prevent some people), which means he'd probably make a lot less money and, more importantly to this discussion, pay much lower taxes in aggregate in his life, therefore forcing you and others to pay more.
Isn't it a shortsighted policy to force payment by any means, if it actually costs you more in the long run?
Releasing daily is not the same as releasing the same day it was developed. It's just a matter of having a pipeline instead of a dam that bursts every six months.
In my limited experience, users can't handle too many changes at once without despairing and assuming they can't use the application anymore. Regular updates are critical to keep such complaints low.
Java and Flash updates are annoying because the user has to update. Compare with Chrome silent updates; do you really think the user cares if they're on version 13 or 24?
I think small regular updates are better, since the user doesn't login one day, see 3/4 of the application changed, throw up their hands and assume they can't use it anymore.
Small, incremental updates let the user take in changed they can handle.
I pay taxes because the Law would come freeze and take my wages if I didn't. Not really comparable.
As for a mobile plan, I don't pay for one. Why? Because I think it's too expensive for the value it'd get me. Which rather exemplifies my point: if they were getting exploited, they wouldn't invest. The fact that they do proves they still get more out of it than they put in, and in fact, more than anywhere else.
No, they don't get as much as they'd like, but that's not getting exploited, that's just life. I'm sure every wage laborer would like to earn more too, but they're not all getting exploited.
Wasn't the alternative bankruptcy? Did they purposely sabotage the company? Didn't they lose the invested money too? Then why is it paying something being an asshole?
But my last question still stands: why hasn't a stock exchange for non-HFT traders appeared? Why can't we leave HFTs to their own little bubble?
If they are exploited, why do they trade? And why doesn't a competing stock exchange with a "no-HFT" rule appear and takes all the non-HF traders away from the others?