I think that the definition of an Abrahamic god includes the part where he has final say over what's right and wrong. If God says it's right to blow up a plane, then by golly, it is.
Then it's a meaningless construction of semantics. "I have every right to believe what I believe, you have every right to believe what you believe, I believe you have no right to believe what you believe...."
Ergo, black hole. There's such a thing as having a respect for multiple viewpoints, but it doesn't boil down to nihilism.
Moral relativism is a black hole. Besides which, you can't win an argument with it, you can only refuse to accept an argument on the grounds that it's as invalid as any other argument.
This is pretty much the party line that you get from them.
On the other hand, plenty of other organizations do have much, much higher adoption rates. To their credit.
I wonder if it's not just that PETA is quick with the needle, but that they'd still suffer from low adoption rates in their shelters, primarily because most people don't want to deal with PETA if they don't have to.
And they have pretty much zero effect there. Why? Because they alienate people with combativeness. They get attention because people love to hate them. And they seem completely oblivious to that fact.
You know, maybe they could have spent some of that development money on outreach for their shelters, so that they wouldn't have to kill 86% of the animals they shelter.
But no, I guess making video games, stockpiling red paint, and placing ads of naked hippies should really come first.
I would call them Dolly's daughters, since they were cloned off of Dolly, not the original sheep. This is consistent with my understanding of the nomenclature used for species that reproduce asexually. They're each other's sisters, and the original sheep's granddaughters.
1) Palin was viewed as a "balance" to the ticket. McCain's camp thought he would do pretty strongly among moderates, as he had historically done so, and that Palin would help solidify his standing (e.g., turnout) in the Republican party itself 2) Sarah Palin has a vagina. This was important. Although Hillary Clinton was pretty much out of the running at that point, there were plenty of older, female Hillary supporters who the McCain camp thought they could attract by having a female running mate 3) Sarah Palin was an unknown quantity. That is, since she had little experience with the Bush administration, she would be immune from any criticisms of it, which had been running pretty high throughout '08. She could invent herself for a national audience however she wanted. And, to be fair, she did.
I think it's just a call for more creative nicknames. I don't think I've put numbers in my nickname...ever. Maybe when I was 9 years old and using AOL. Plus nobody else uses this one.
No - ignorance of the law is not an excuse - you can't say "But I didn't know!".
Actually, it is. That is exactly the issue at stake. From TFA:
Under 504(c)(1), an infringer is ordinarily liable for statutory damages of “not less than $750 or more than $30,000” per work infringed. In a case involving an “innocent infringer,” however, the minimum statutory damages that must be awarded are reduced. Specifically, if the infringer proves that he or she “was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement,” then the minimum statutory damages per violation are $200. 504(c)(2).
E.g., if she didn't know, she can get a smaller fine.
I think you ought to RTFA a bit, you seem to be arguing against yourself. The circuit court said that the "Innocent Infringer" defense does not apply, because the girl could have figured it out if she'd researched it, that the copyright notice was printed on the CD (even though she never had one), and that the fact that she was a teenage girl without much familiarity with copyright law was irrelevant. Justice Alito said, "Hey, wait a minute, this girl never saw a copyright notice, it's not like she's a copyright lawyer, the law in question refers to the use of a medium that isn't even used much any more, it sounds like they have a case, maybe we should look into this."
Then you say the same thing Alito is saying, then attack him for saying it, then try to make a point that laws shouldn't change just because their environment has changed, then try to say that the girl may not be liable because the environment of copyright infringement has changed. There's such a thing as being too glib.
That would be a pretty advanced AI, seeing as the distinction is quite blurry for humans, especially politicians, soldiers, and probably the "real bad guys" themselves.
Yeah, this is ridiculous. Android Magazine should write an article about how desperate Apple seems, so that all of the iPhone users can read it and...oh, wait...
"Mixed records against terrorism: Saudi donors remain the chief financiers of Sunni militant groups like Al Qaeda, and the tiny Persian Gulf state of Qatar, a generous host to the American military for years, was the “worst in the region” in counterterrorism efforts, according to a State Department cable last December. Qatar’s security service was “hesitant to act against known terrorists out of concern for appearing to be aligned with the U.S. and provoking reprisals,” the cable said."
Well, there goes their World Cup bid. Thanks, Wikileaks! Now if only they could publish Australia's dirty laundry...
Honestly, though, very little of this---and I intend to follow-up on this when I have time---very little seems like a US cover-up of its own dirty laundry. (With the exception of that poor German...I'm not sure if that episode is more funny or scary...but certainly, one that should have been released.) But the damaging nonetheless. The stuff about Qaddafi pitching a fit over the tent was well-known, but a guy like that is likely to take offense easily over the diplomats' description and some of the public revelations---which is definitely not good for relations in the Middle East, regardless of whether or not it's true. That Berlusconi reportedly has ties to Putin is news to me, I don't know how surprising that is to Europeans, but I never much cared for either of them. Most of the rest---at least, in the highlights---was just confirmation of what we already knew. China was behind the Google hacking? The US had to bribe other countries to take Guantanamo inmates? No, really....
Again, with the exception of the creepy-as-hell CIA incident, there's not much here that seems to justify the release of the documents, based on an ad-hoc cost-benefit analysis that I just made up. This isn't going to promote transparency, it's just going to make the government put a bigger lock on its information. Don't be surprised if in future exchanges, everything here that was unclassified becomes classified, and some of the stuff that was secret becomes more secret. I'm sympathetic to a lot of what Wikileaks has done, hell, I'm currently seeding the Iraq War Diary, but there doesn't seem to be much benefit from this information's release.
We somehow today equate winning a war with winning over the people and making them love us.
Well, isn't that the point? I mean, why are we in Afghanistan? Because many of the people there hated us and blew up some buildings. So we decided to kill a bunch of the people who hate us and leave only the people who love us, and make them love us more because we've invaded their country.
(I have to admit, it does sound pretty stupid when you put it like that.)
Slashdot Mirror
I think that the definition of an Abrahamic god includes the part where he has final say over what's right and wrong. If God says it's right to blow up a plane, then by golly, it is.
(Good argument for atheism, IMHO.)
Then it's a meaningless construction of semantics. "I have every right to believe what I believe, you have every right to believe what you believe, I believe you have no right to believe what you believe...."
Ergo, black hole. There's such a thing as having a respect for multiple viewpoints, but it doesn't boil down to nihilism.
Moral relativism is a black hole. Besides which, you can't win an argument with it, you can only refuse to accept an argument on the grounds that it's as invalid as any other argument.
This is pretty much the party line that you get from them.
On the other hand, plenty of other organizations do have much, much higher adoption rates. To their credit.
I wonder if it's not just that PETA is quick with the needle, but that they'd still suffer from low adoption rates in their shelters, primarily because most people don't want to deal with PETA if they don't have to.
And they have pretty much zero effect there. Why? Because they alienate people with combativeness. They get attention because people love to hate them. And they seem completely oblivious to that fact.
You know, maybe they could have spent some of that development money on outreach for their shelters, so that they wouldn't have to kill 86% of the animals they shelter.
But no, I guess making video games, stockpiling red paint, and placing ads of naked hippies should really come first.
Oops. You're right. I misread the article.
I was going to make idle threats about using mine, but that's just a way to ensure it happens.
Duh, they'd have to be cows, not sheep.
I would call them Dolly's daughters, since they were cloned off of Dolly, not the original sheep. This is consistent with my understanding of the nomenclature used for species that reproduce asexually. They're each other's sisters, and the original sheep's granddaughters.
Here are 3 things he might have been thinking:
1) Palin was viewed as a "balance" to the ticket. McCain's camp thought he would do pretty strongly among moderates, as he had historically done so, and that Palin would help solidify his standing (e.g., turnout) in the Republican party itself
2) Sarah Palin has a vagina. This was important. Although Hillary Clinton was pretty much out of the running at that point, there were plenty of older, female Hillary supporters who the McCain camp thought they could attract by having a female running mate
3) Sarah Palin was an unknown quantity. That is, since she had little experience with the Bush administration, she would be immune from any criticisms of it, which had been running pretty high throughout '08. She could invent herself for a national audience however she wanted. And, to be fair, she did.
I think it's just a call for more creative nicknames. I don't think I've put numbers in my nickname...ever. Maybe when I was 9 years old and using AOL. Plus nobody else uses this one.
In China? You've got to be kidding me. Because the Chinese just love people who spill secrets, and they don't have any ties to global finance.
Okay, I know this is Slashdot, but seriously, RTFA.
No - ignorance of the law is not an excuse - you can't say "But I didn't know!".
Actually, it is. That is exactly the issue at stake. From TFA:
Under 504(c)(1), an infringer is ordinarily liable for statutory damages of “not less than $750 or more than $30,000” per work infringed. In a case involving an “innocent infringer,” however, the minimum statutory damages that must be awarded are reduced. Specifically, if the infringer proves that he or she “was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement,” then the minimum statutory damages per violation are $200. 504(c)(2).
E.g., if she didn't know, she can get a smaller fine.
I think you ought to RTFA a bit, you seem to be arguing against yourself. The circuit court said that the "Innocent Infringer" defense does not apply, because the girl could have figured it out if she'd researched it, that the copyright notice was printed on the CD (even though she never had one), and that the fact that she was a teenage girl without much familiarity with copyright law was irrelevant. Justice Alito said, "Hey, wait a minute, this girl never saw a copyright notice, it's not like she's a copyright lawyer, the law in question refers to the use of a medium that isn't even used much any more, it sounds like they have a case, maybe we should look into this."
Then you say the same thing Alito is saying, then attack him for saying it, then try to make a point that laws shouldn't change just because their environment has changed, then try to say that the girl may not be liable because the environment of copyright infringement has changed. There's such a thing as being too glib.
No, it depends on your grasp of politics and your command of the English language.
"target the real bad guys and not civilians"
That would be a pretty advanced AI, seeing as the distinction is quite blurry for humans, especially politicians, soldiers, and probably the "real bad guys" themselves.
Yeah, this is ridiculous. Android Magazine should write an article about how desperate Apple seems, so that all of the iPhone users can read it and...oh, wait...
It keeps iOS developers employed.
This explains why I have such a hard time carrying a conversation with the Fox News crowd. They meant to say that Obama is a socialite.
"Mixed records against terrorism: Saudi donors remain the chief financiers of Sunni militant groups like Al Qaeda, and the tiny Persian Gulf state of Qatar, a generous host to the American military for years, was the “worst in the region” in counterterrorism efforts, according to a State Department cable last December. Qatar’s security service was “hesitant to act against known terrorists out of concern for appearing to be aligned with the U.S. and provoking reprisals,” the cable said."
Well, there goes their World Cup bid. Thanks, Wikileaks! Now if only they could publish Australia's dirty laundry...
Honestly, though, very little of this---and I intend to follow-up on this when I have time---very little seems like a US cover-up of its own dirty laundry. (With the exception of that poor German...I'm not sure if that episode is more funny or scary...but certainly, one that should have been released.) But the damaging nonetheless. The stuff about Qaddafi pitching a fit over the tent was well-known, but a guy like that is likely to take offense easily over the diplomats' description and some of the public revelations---which is definitely not good for relations in the Middle East, regardless of whether or not it's true. That Berlusconi reportedly has ties to Putin is news to me, I don't know how surprising that is to Europeans, but I never much cared for either of them. Most of the rest---at least, in the highlights---was just confirmation of what we already knew. China was behind the Google hacking? The US had to bribe other countries to take Guantanamo inmates? No, really....
Again, with the exception of the creepy-as-hell CIA incident, there's not much here that seems to justify the release of the documents, based on an ad-hoc cost-benefit analysis that I just made up. This isn't going to promote transparency, it's just going to make the government put a bigger lock on its information. Don't be surprised if in future exchanges, everything here that was unclassified becomes classified, and some of the stuff that was secret becomes more secret. I'm sympathetic to a lot of what Wikileaks has done, hell, I'm currently seeding the Iraq War Diary, but there doesn't seem to be much benefit from this information's release.
But man, that poor German...
We somehow today equate winning a war with winning over the people and making them love us.
Well, isn't that the point? I mean, why are we in Afghanistan? Because many of the people there hated us and blew up some buildings. So we decided to kill a bunch of the people who hate us and leave only the people who love us, and make them love us more because we've invaded their country.
(I have to admit, it does sound pretty stupid when you put it like that.)
Well, could your grandmother land it?
He catches the rebound, he shoots....and he flubs it again!