They already are cutting on stuff. The problem is that economies don't work like home finances. Our economy has been shitty for decades and now with the crisis and the cuts on spending (like salaries) is only getting worse (in 2011 the GDP has a negative growth of -2.8%), meaning we won't be able to pay the debt regardless.
Yes, that'll be great in two or three decades, when we finish paying the debt we already have and that is growing faster than we can pay it due to interests alone.
Right now, we are *still* borrowing more (and so is Greece, by the way) - that "help" from the FMI, EU and ECB is far from free.
Chinese people aren't threated by force into working in factories, they're forced because the alternative is worse. By not buying their products you're taking away their choice and helping to contribute to their famine.
Yeah, right. To try to get money for themselves is more likely. The SPA and GDA are constantly trying to get off from actually paying the artists and authors.
the people in charge of a set of rights management associations, which happen to be near bankruptcy due to gross mismanagement.
And one wonders how, considering how they steal from the rights holders by failing to contact them repeatedly when they're required to. Because, of course, they get the money first from the companies and then they are supposed to distribute it through the authors, so they have every incentive to "forget" the last part.
GNU and Linux were in fact collaborative projects, but not with "crowds" - in fact, they have very small groups of highly knowledgeable experts. There are big differences in terms of the necessary mechanisms for coordination, trust, etc.
if someone brings the threat of physical harm against you then you also have every right to defend yourself to the fullest of your abilities.
Sorry, but that's not true. According to the Florida legal code, you can only use deadly force "only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm". It's not just a thread of physical harm.
The United States isn't Great Britain, Americans are allowed to defend themselves. No, it shouldn't be required to take potentially lethal damage to your body before you defend yourself with deadly force. Frankly, that goes beyond silly.
More or less. You don't have to actually sustain it, but you do have to potentially sustain it; you can't use deadly force to defend yourself against any attack.
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.-- (...) However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.
Now, whether Zimmerman was actually in fear for his life or not is hard to know; I do think he deserves the benefit of the doubt unless it is proven he wasn't.
Sure, but that doesn't change the fact that evolution is a well supported scientific theory while creationism is a non-scientific hypothesis, at best.
Essentially, evolution is for the time being as good as fact. There's no other scientific theory that fits the facts, so there's nothing else to teach.
the atheist position that the universe just...is...because...it is.
Apparently, you have no idea what "atheist" means. It just means a person who doesn't have a belief in god(s) - and not necessarily a belief that gods don't exist (that's just gnostic atheists). There's no other position, and it doesn't even preclude a belief in the supernatural.
Particularly, many atheists including myself, do not have any position on the issue. I do have a position on what should be teached in science class, and unscientific bullshit isn't it.
No. Words have different definitions based on contexts. Just like here on/. the word "Java" means a programming language and not a type of coffee, "theory" means something different in the context of science, as opposed to its colloquial meaning.
Slashdot Mirror
Most dictionaries have two. Personally, I think the dictionaries are a crappy way to define those words.
I prefer the definitions used here (which most atheist communities share, AFAIK), under which I'm an agnostic atheist.
You're confusing not having a belief with having a belief in the inverse.
For example, I'm an atheist, but I don't have a belief that gods don't exist. I just don't believe in any.
Therefore, if you only believe in what sciences says, you don't necessarily have some wrong beliefs, you just lack some beliefs that would be true.
They already are cutting on stuff. The problem is that economies don't work like home finances. Our economy has been shitty for decades and now with the crisis and the cuts on spending (like salaries) is only getting worse (in 2011 the GDP has a negative growth of -2.8%), meaning we won't be able to pay the debt regardless.
Yes, that'll be great in two or three decades, when we finish paying the debt we already have and that is growing faster than we can pay it due to interests alone.
Right now, we are *still* borrowing more (and so is Greece, by the way) - that "help" from the FMI, EU and ECB is far from free.
I'm just saying I'm not loving watching the events. Even if this is the less worse option, it'll still be way too painful for me to enjoy it.
Chinese people aren't threated by force into working in factories, they're forced because the alternative is worse. By not buying their products you're taking away their choice and helping to contribute to their famine.
http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/smokey.html
to try to get money to artists
Yeah, right. To try to get money for themselves is more likely. The SPA and GDA are constantly trying to get off from actually paying the artists and authors.
Yeah, but your VAT/IVA is only 19%. When it gets to 23% like here in Portugal buying from abroad starts to make a lot of sense.
the people in charge of a set of rights management associations, which happen to be near bankruptcy due to gross mismanagement.
And one wonders how, considering how they steal from the rights holders by failing to contact them repeatedly when they're required to. Because, of course, they get the money first from the companies and then they are supposed to distribute it through the authors, so they have every incentive to "forget" the last part.
As a Portuguese citizen, I'm not.
Why don't you blame the perpetrator? The person who planted the bomb?
Despite common beliefs, it is actually possible to blame more than one person for the same event.
Same with ETA in Spain, IIRC. Sometimes they warn newspapers, probably to increase visibility.
Sorry, but a twelve year old car isn't modern. It's obviously still perfectly good for the purpose, but not modern anymore.
You should ask a Florida legislator, not me.
GNU and Linux were in fact collaborative projects, but not with "crowds" - in fact, they have very small groups of highly knowledgeable experts. There are big differences in terms of the necessary mechanisms for coordination, trust, etc.
I'm pretty sure the average person will sometimes be confused (like when you give them a .name email address) and otherwise not give a damn.
if someone brings the threat of physical harm against you then you also have every right to defend yourself to the fullest of your abilities.
Sorry, but that's not true. According to the Florida legal code, you can only use deadly force "only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm". It's not just a thread of physical harm.
The United States isn't Great Britain, Americans are allowed to defend themselves. No, it shouldn't be required to take potentially lethal damage to your body before you defend yourself with deadly force. Frankly, that goes beyond silly.
More or less. You don't have to actually sustain it, but you do have to potentially sustain it; you can't use deadly force to defend yourself against any attack.
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.-- (...) However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.
Now, whether Zimmerman was actually in fear for his life or not is hard to know; I do think he deserves the benefit of the doubt unless it is proven he wasn't.
His injuries did not even require a trip to the hospital, though.
That's news to me. I call people all the time without a contract, my phone must be special.
Where exactly does evolution try to explain the origin of life? You're just attacking a strawman.
Sure, but that doesn't change the fact that evolution is a well supported scientific theory while creationism is a non-scientific hypothesis, at best.
Essentially, evolution is for the time being as good as fact. There's no other scientific theory that fits the facts, so there's nothing else to teach.
You don't understand what the word theory means in a context of science. Please go educate yourself.
the atheist position that the universe just...is...because...it is.
Apparently, you have no idea what "atheist" means. It just means a person who doesn't have a belief in god(s) - and not necessarily a belief that gods don't exist (that's just gnostic atheists). There's no other position, and it doesn't even preclude a belief in the supernatural.
Particularly, many atheists including myself, do not have any position on the issue. I do have a position on what should be teached in science class, and unscientific bullshit isn't it.
No. Words have different definitions based on contexts. Just like here on /. the word "Java" means a programming language and not a type of coffee, "theory" means something different in the context of science, as opposed to its colloquial meaning.