Have you ever seriously asked why people are willing to believe in Christianity over Evolution?
Here is the problem with your argument, I think. There is no meaningful "Christianity v Evolution". Substitute "Creationism" for "Christianity" if you like (and in the process realise that people can be Christians and accept evolution theory), but it still doesn't provide a meaningful dichotomy. Evolution answers questions about how did this change into that, and creationism answers questions about where and how did it all start in the first place.
People are willing to believe "Christianity over evolution" because they think the two are competing answers to the same question. It's not so. The magisteria do not overlap on this point.
I'm thinking that whoever tagged that is either engaging in wishful thinking or doesn't have a proper appreciation of the cretinous nature of the NSW legislature at the moment. I would not be entirely surprised if this bill got at least a serious look-in, and possibly even passed. This is the sort of thing that both the major players in NSW state politics love to do; each successive state election becomes more and more a law-and-order auction, to the point that we often talk about a mythical voter called Laura Norder.
That's consistent with previous predictions but they're claiming the 'first' even though the experiment was only a numerical simulation. Does that really count?
I'm prepared to be corrected, but doesn't that count as a prediction rather than an observation?
That's not really appropriate here. Since VHS was never known as anything other than Video Home System to the world at large, you can't really claim that it's wrong. At the very least, you could say that both are correct.
No. That just makes the world at large ignorant. FFS, WTF is wrong with getting it right? Would it actually kill anyone to get it right for a change? Like Joe Sixpack is going to be all "oh no, I can't buy that; it's one of those vertical thingamajiggers, much better to buy that Beta thing that nobody else buys". FMD.
(it's not a right to vote it's a priviledge and if you're registered to vote there's a fine if you don't and once you're on an electoral roll the only way off is to die)
Wait a minute, isn't something that's mandatory the exact opposite of a privilege?
Not necessarily. The exact opposite of privilege would be chore: something that one is forced to do with absolutely no satisfaction or enjoyment. That description does not necessarily apply to a mandatory vote. Being forced to do something you want to do, such as vote or breathe or have beer, is not a "chore". Oxygen can, under hypothetical circumstances at least, be a privilege. But it's still mandatory. If you want to live, that is.
Not every day or time, it all comes down to in which environment it has to survive. And we have examples of tool-compatible appendages in aquatic life here on earth: the octopus that can open plastic bottles http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfRqYjv9QgA.
Not to belittle our friend, the octopus, but opening a plastic bottle is quite significantly simpler than making a plastic bottle.
Nuclear power is not carbon neutral. Uranium is mined, and nobody is running mining equipment on biodiesel, nor are they transporting it to power plants using biodiesel, ethanol, or even renewable generated electricity on electric locomotives. To be sure, the amount of carbon is extremely low per kWh of electricity generated, but very small > 0, even for very small cases of very small.
I believe that fossil fuels also have the advantage of not being carbon-neutral to extract from the ground. They also have the advantage of being quite non-carbon-neutral when you burn them, and as an added bonus some of them manage to put some radioactive waste into the air in the process.
They're not MANDATING the USE of the filtered content, only that the ISP has to make it available.
While they may not be forcing Australian citizens to use the internet filter, they're doing the next worst thing because you have to take an affirmative step in order to get it removed. The ISPs/government will have a handy list of all the "perverts" who want access to the unfiltered internet. There's no excuse for why this is an opt-out filter in private homes.
What's the difference between "give us the list of people who opted out" and "give us the list of people who didn't opt in", given that the union of both sets equals the entire registered user base of any given ISP, and that there is no intersection between the two sets?
A more relevant example would be how you can set up a PC for the first time, and have all the cables carefully arranged so that there is no crossing over or tangling, and yet when you come back six months later, to add a new device or to swap out a cable, every single one of them is wrapped tightly around the others to such an extent that you can't understand how it could come about without somebody doing it intentionally.
Considering our requirements, we believe the widespread use of technically competitive, but not necessarily "free" open standards, such as H.264 for video and AAC for audio, would serve the community best. This would be fully aligned with the business model dominant in the digital video ecosystem.
Brazil started doing this when the US announced it was doing it to all visitors a couple of years ago. It surprised me to see that it has taken other countries so long to start doing this too. What goes around comes around. We do it to the world, then the world will do it to us.
They're not just doing it to US citizens. They're doing it to everyone. That's not pay-back; that's me-too.
Like the United Kingdom [1] you have a first-past-the-post system of electing government. What this means is that you have two
parties who exchange power at regular intervals with very little prospect of a third, forth or fifth party getting in to the
running.
We get a similar result with full
preferential (instant-runoff) voting in Australia. I suspect we live in two-party systems because enough people think that we live
in two-party systems. Even here in Australia, with preferential voting, some people still think that a first preference for an
"alternative" (not one of the two major parties) candidate is a wasted vote.
Terrorists don't even care about us being in fear, insofar as it doesn't directly aid them in their goal - to establish an Islamic state over the whole US.
Although I'm sure you didn't mean it this way, it looks like a rather specific definition of terrorism: those who wish to establish an Islamic state in the USA.
Good, then i would see the real price advertised instead of seeing something 8% cheaper than it really will be...
In Australia the GST (10%, more or less a sales tax) must, by law, be included in the price as advertised/quoted/etc. Either way, the buyer will end up paying it. Me, I'm not a big fan of having a price on the ticket and then having a sales tax slapped on at the counter.
Slashdot Mirror
Here is the problem with your argument, I think. There is no meaningful "Christianity v Evolution". Substitute "Creationism" for "Christianity" if you like (and in the process realise that people can be Christians and accept evolution theory), but it still doesn't provide a meaningful dichotomy. Evolution answers questions about how did this change into that, and creationism answers questions about where and how did it all start in the first place.
People are willing to believe "Christianity over evolution" because they think the two are competing answers to the same question. It's not so. The magisteria do not overlap on this point.
No, it really doesn't.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
I'm thinking that whoever tagged that is either engaging in wishful thinking or doesn't have a proper appreciation of the cretinous nature of the NSW legislature at the moment. I would not be entirely surprised if this bill got at least a serious look-in, and possibly even passed. This is the sort of thing that both the major players in NSW state politics love to do; each successive state election becomes more and more a law-and-order auction, to the point that we often talk about a mythical voter called Laura Norder.
I'm prepared to be corrected, but doesn't that count as a prediction rather than an observation?
...because I read that as "Proposed Bill in Tennessee Penalizes Schools for Allowing Privacy"
[n+7] Profit !!!
Moreover, nobody seems to have flown the "the language evolves, get over it" flag.
No. That just makes the world at large ignorant. FFS, WTF is wrong with getting it right? Would it actually kill anyone to get it right for a change? Like Joe Sixpack is going to be all "oh no, I can't buy that; it's one of those vertical thingamajiggers, much better to buy that Beta thing that nobody else buys". FMD.
Not necessarily. The exact opposite of privilege would be chore: something that one is forced to do with absolutely no satisfaction or enjoyment. That description does not necessarily apply to a mandatory vote. Being forced to do something you want to do, such as vote or breathe or have beer, is not a "chore". Oxygen can, under hypothetical circumstances at least, be a privilege. But it's still mandatory. If you want to live, that is.
Not to belittle our friend, the octopus, but opening a plastic bottle is quite significantly simpler than making a plastic bottle.
For one thing, Hitler was arguably religious. For another, neither of these two conducted their activities for any "atheist cause".
I believe that fossil fuels also have the advantage of not being carbon-neutral to extract from the ground. They also have the advantage of being quite non-carbon-neutral when you burn them, and as an added bonus some of them manage to put some radioactive waste into the air in the process.
Just sayin'.
What's the difference between "give us the list of people who opted out" and "give us the list of people who didn't opt in", given that the union of both sets equals the entire registered user base of any given ISP, and that there is no intersection between the two sets?
The intelligent designer did it.
At least they're honest, I suppose.
They're not just doing it to US citizens. They're doing it to everyone. That's not pay-back; that's me-too.
We get a similar result with full preferential (instant-runoff) voting in Australia. I suspect we live in two-party systems because enough people think that we live in two-party systems. Even here in Australia, with preferential voting, some people still think that a first preference for an "alternative" (not one of the two major parties) candidate is a wasted vote.
There's very little that the RIAA tries to extort money for that can be called music.
Although I'm sure you didn't mean it this way, it looks like a rather specific definition of terrorism: those who wish to establish an Islamic state in the USA.
In Australia the GST (10%, more or less a sales tax) must, by law, be included in the price as advertised/quoted/etc. Either way, the buyer will end up paying it. Me, I'm not a big fan of having a price on the ticket and then having a sales tax slapped on at the counter.
Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these!
Sellers would just end up factoring that into the cost anyway.
No, that's OK; you can have all of it. For the same reason we export Fosters.