My point is that while we are so down on the entire Intelligent Design being worthy of any consideration, we are simultaneously speculating on other notions that would by definition *imply* it.
.... going to realize that they are essentially just advocating intelligent design?
If we live in a simulation, then some intelligent being designed that simulation. Period.
ID may get touted a lot as some sort of pseudo-scientific camouflage for creationism, but in the end, it's still just about an alternative origin to our beginnings than just evolution. Suggesting we are living in a simulation is not only compatible with the notion that we were created, but it would seem to imply it.
I'm not sure how what is clearly an exaggerated description of some men's genitals or levels of fertility is supposed to indicate that positions other than 'missionary' are disallowed.
Except for ones that have content that was legal for anyone to copy and distribute in the first place without express permission from the copyright holder.
Much of the freely available content or software that I download these days is via torrent.
You are quite wrong on point 4, however. While it may be a matter of personal preference for some christians, there is nothing in the Bible that can even remotely be interpreted as condemning other copulatory positions than 'missionary'. This might be a a particular church denomonation's view (similar to the Catholic church's prohibition on artificial birth control), but is not reflective of most even extremely strict Christian views.
Having "no distinctive character," and being "banal and commonplace" could fit for most of that too. somehow I think there's more to it than that or else tv shows would be public domain
No.... I said a person shouldn't be held account for breaking a law that somebody else thinks they broke because of how the law may happen to be worded, but didn't actually ever break at all because on closer inspection one discovers that the law was not intended to apply to the circumstances where one thought they may have broken the law in the first place.
By the same reasoning, if someone *does* break the law by exploiting badly worded text, they need to be held accountable for doing that as well.
Wrong.... if my boss decide he deliberately wants to defraud the government and in the process try and get me a bigger income tax refund than what I am legitimately owed by faking information on my income tax statements that I submit when I do my tax return, I still owe the government the same amount that I am supposed to pay them. My boss will get in a shiitload of trouble of course, and probably go to jail too, but even if years went by, as long as it was within the statute of limitations, I'd still have to pay the money back. I might, of course, have a legitimate lawsuit claim against my employer for deliberately misinforming me of the amount I had to pay, but I'd still have to actually pay the right amount. In this case, owing to the statute of limitations, Apple is only expected to pay back taxes going back to 2003, and not to 1991, whcih is when this apparently began.
I have little doubt that some types of bacteria survived the hostilities of space to land on Mars with at least some of the probes that we've sent there.
Of course, and a statute of limitations applies here too. That's why it only goes back to 2003 and not to 1991 when Ireland artificially lowered the amount of tax they said Apple would have to pay
The Irish government is the one who determines how much tax apple should pay.
No... it is the Irish government that is supposed to tell Apple how much to pay. The amount is determined by the EU. My company is supposed to tell me how much tax I am supposed to pay, if they get it wrong, I still owe the amount that I'm supposed to pay.
If Ireland broke EU regulations, then Ireland is the one who should pay up.
I remember one time when I got my year's income tax records from my employer and was filing my taxes, and using the amounts that they gave me, I was eligible for a substantial refund. I submitted this when I filed my return and received said refund. About 2 months later, however, I received a notification that there had been an error, and although I was not being charged any interest for the intervening time, I still had to pay much of the money I had received back. The error was actually my employer's (although the difference here is that in my case, the mistake my employer made was accidental), but I was still liable for the difference in the tax refund. As I recall, I had something like 6 or 8 weeks to pay it back without any penalty from the time I got the notice.
By that reasoning, if you make an honest mistake when filing your taxes and this mistake is not caught by the government when you submit your tax return netting you a substantial larger income tax refund than what you should have rightfully received, then you should be able to keep any money you get from them, and not have to pay any of it back when they discover the mistake? While you may not actually be guilty of tax fraud in such circumstances, are you going to argue that you should be able to keep everything that they sent you? You shouldn't be charged any interest for the intervening time between when the taxes were filed and when the mistake was discovered, of course, but why shouldn't you have to pay the difference back?
This actually happened to me, by the way... It was actually my employer's mistake, but it was unintentional on their part as well. I still had to pay back the difference between what they sent me and what I should have received. (Without interest penalty though... as long as I paid it back within a certain time of the date that they sent the notice of the error).
If what Apple did was legal in the past, they shouldn't just be able to levy a fine just because the law as written wasn't fair.
Ah, but the converse holds true... take for example a law that may be poorly written may appear superficially to outlaw an apparently completely innocuous activity... and when a person does this activity, by the same reasoning as you've presented, they should be held accountable for breaking said law, and face applicable punishment. But if in fact the law was never intended to outlaw that activity in the first place and the confusion is only the result of a misinterpretation of said law, then in fact, no law has ever really been broken. Written laws are not perfect, because people are not perfect... that is no excuse to not hold anyone to the standard of following the law as it is intended.
And while the law may not written exactly the way it was intended here, the law was still broken. By the same reasoning that a person who does something that isn't actually against a (poorly worded) law should not be held accountable for breaking the law, despite the wording of said law apparently disallowing it, Apple should be held accountable in this situation as well.
The only time it should be any different from this is if when you have a clear case of entrapment, which is not applicable here, because there was never any intent to misinform Apple about what the tax laws actually are.
... because he is clearly incompetent. Not only did he disable the lights without apparently realizing that this might confuse people into thinking that it was not working if they had any reason to suspect something may be wrong (while the presence of a light may at least give a person who checks enough pause to investigate whether they actually did everything correctly themselves to connect to it before resorting to filing a problem report), but the guy actually apparently did this more than once. Once is bad enough, but anyone who cannot even LEARN from a mistake they shouldn't have made in the first place from their job description is clearly not is clearly not in a position of having sufficient mental faculties to duly perform their job correctly.
How idiotic does a person have to be to not think of covering the leds up with masking tape? People still wouldn't see the lights, but they'd see the tape, and realize that the tape is covering them up and not that they are not even lit.
Even LED's from the 1970's would cast visible shadows in a darkened room. I remember when I was a kid using the green led that was on the side of a toy that I had to read under the covers in bed. I remember that I couldn't read by the light of the red one, however, although I wasn't sure why... because the red and green leds did appear to be about equally bright.
Obviously, but the basis for disqualification is (our should be) actually only based on their ability to do the job, and it may only happen to be the case that a disability impacts ability to perform the tasks that the job requires. Autism may or may not make a person a better software engineer (I suspect it does, but I won't try to make an argument here for it), but even if it did, using that disability as a basis for discrimination to prefer those people in such positions rather than only on their actual ability as a software engineer is just as unfair to people who are neurotypical as discriminating against them is to those with autism.
Favoring a particular demographic because they have a particular disability is still discrimination. If it's against the law to discriminate against someone because of a disability, it should not matter whether they actually have that disability or not.... one should not be using said disability as a basis for discrimination, period.
Perhaps.... but it wouldn't have been an issue if you had just said what you actually meant in the first place instead of dancing around your initial point with claims that only appeared to substantiate a deliberate intention to stand behind the initial assertion. While I understand that people don't always literally mean what they say, you could have easily clarified this issue when I asked about it. At no point during this discourse did you even say anything like "well that's not what I really meant", particularly in response to (#52845265), where I would think it should have been at least somewhat clear to you that I was confused as to how what you were talking about was compatible with that initial viewpoint, and your response to that gave me no reason to assume that what you had said initially was not what you consciously intended to convey.
You need some new scripts.
You lost me on this one... but owing to the fact that this discussion has apparently devolved into ad-hominems, I'm not sure how constructive I can expect your response to be.
If the 3.5 jack truly and objectively needed to go, Apple should have replaced it with a second lightning port or even another entirely proprietary port they might try and argue was superior, or ideally, not removed it entirely. The lack of a separate port for headphones makes it impossible to charge the device while using wired headphones without having a separate very-easy-to-lose-but-still-not-cheap hub, impacting not only potential portability to say the least, but it also has significant accessibility implications.
Nobody says that you have to write an app in Java for it to work on Android, actually. When I was working as a game dev a few years ago, I actually wrote more apps using ndk than I did using Java. However... while Java may be less than ideal for systems that requite the handling of fast-changing circumstances like what you might need for a video game, for instance, in terms of user-interaction, Java on Android is not generally going to be the bottleneck on performance. To be perfectly frank, the cpu usage problems you have had with Android are probably more likely attributable to the actual devices or even possibly badly written applications you have used than they are to Java.
The problem with that is "clear" and "unambiguous" are actually subjective notions. The inability to clearly comprehend something that requires a level of comprehension that has not yet been achieved is not a failing in what is being communicated.
Yet if it was perfect there really would be no room for misinterpretation
In a nutshell, this reduces to the notion that there is no way for something to be perfect unless everyone is exactly the same. I'm not saying the Quran (or anything else, necessarily) is perfect, but I think your argument is flawed.
Slashdot Mirror
My point is that while we are so down on the entire Intelligent Design being worthy of any consideration, we are simultaneously speculating on other notions that would by definition *imply* it.
If we live in a simulation, then some intelligent being designed that simulation. Period.
ID may get touted a lot as some sort of pseudo-scientific camouflage for creationism, but in the end, it's still just about an alternative origin to our beginnings than just evolution. Suggesting we are living in a simulation is not only compatible with the notion that we were created, but it would seem to imply it.
I'm not sure how what is clearly an exaggerated description of some men's genitals or levels of fertility is supposed to indicate that positions other than 'missionary' are disallowed.
Except for ones that have content that was legal for anyone to copy and distribute in the first place without express permission from the copyright holder.
Much of the freely available content or software that I download these days is via torrent.
You are quite wrong on point 4, however. While it may be a matter of personal preference for some christians, there is nothing in the Bible that can even remotely be interpreted as condemning other copulatory positions than 'missionary'. This might be a a particular church denomonation's view (similar to the Catholic church's prohibition on artificial birth control), but is not reflective of most even extremely strict Christian views.
Sure, it's physically possible, but not really doable with today's technology.
Having "no distinctive character," and being "banal and commonplace" could fit for most of that too. somehow I think there's more to it than that or else tv shows would be public domain
No.... I said a person shouldn't be held account for breaking a law that somebody else thinks they broke because of how the law may happen to be worded, but didn't actually ever break at all because on closer inspection one discovers that the law was not intended to apply to the circumstances where one thought they may have broken the law in the first place.
By the same reasoning, if someone *does* break the law by exploiting badly worded text, they need to be held accountable for doing that as well.
Wrong.... if my boss decide he deliberately wants to defraud the government and in the process try and get me a bigger income tax refund than what I am legitimately owed by faking information on my income tax statements that I submit when I do my tax return, I still owe the government the same amount that I am supposed to pay them. My boss will get in a shiitload of trouble of course, and probably go to jail too, but even if years went by, as long as it was within the statute of limitations, I'd still have to pay the money back. I might, of course, have a legitimate lawsuit claim against my employer for deliberately misinforming me of the amount I had to pay, but I'd still have to actually pay the right amount. In this case, owing to the statute of limitations, Apple is only expected to pay back taxes going back to 2003, and not to 1991, whcih is when this apparently began.
I have little doubt that some types of bacteria survived the hostilities of space to land on Mars with at least some of the probes that we've sent there.
Of course, and a statute of limitations applies here too. That's why it only goes back to 2003 and not to 1991 when Ireland artificially lowered the amount of tax they said Apple would have to pay
No... it is the Irish government that is supposed to tell Apple how much to pay. The amount is determined by the EU. My company is supposed to tell me how much tax I am supposed to pay, if they get it wrong, I still owe the amount that I'm supposed to pay.
I remember one time when I got my year's income tax records from my employer and was filing my taxes, and using the amounts that they gave me, I was eligible for a substantial refund. I submitted this when I filed my return and received said refund. About 2 months later, however, I received a notification that there had been an error, and although I was not being charged any interest for the intervening time, I still had to pay much of the money I had received back. The error was actually my employer's (although the difference here is that in my case, the mistake my employer made was accidental), but I was still liable for the difference in the tax refund. As I recall, I had something like 6 or 8 weeks to pay it back without any penalty from the time I got the notice.
By that reasoning, if you make an honest mistake when filing your taxes and this mistake is not caught by the government when you submit your tax return netting you a substantial larger income tax refund than what you should have rightfully received, then you should be able to keep any money you get from them, and not have to pay any of it back when they discover the mistake? While you may not actually be guilty of tax fraud in such circumstances, are you going to argue that you should be able to keep everything that they sent you? You shouldn't be charged any interest for the intervening time between when the taxes were filed and when the mistake was discovered, of course, but why shouldn't you have to pay the difference back?
This actually happened to me, by the way... It was actually my employer's mistake, but it was unintentional on their part as well. I still had to pay back the difference between what they sent me and what I should have received. (Without interest penalty though... as long as I paid it back within a certain time of the date that they sent the notice of the error).
Ah, but the converse holds true... take for example a law that may be poorly written may appear superficially to outlaw an apparently completely innocuous activity... and when a person does this activity, by the same reasoning as you've presented, they should be held accountable for breaking said law, and face applicable punishment. But if in fact the law was never intended to outlaw that activity in the first place and the confusion is only the result of a misinterpretation of said law, then in fact, no law has ever really been broken. Written laws are not perfect, because people are not perfect... that is no excuse to not hold anyone to the standard of following the law as it is intended.
And while the law may not written exactly the way it was intended here, the law was still broken. By the same reasoning that a person who does something that isn't actually against a (poorly worded) law should not be held accountable for breaking the law, despite the wording of said law apparently disallowing it, Apple should be held accountable in this situation as well.
The only time it should be any different from this is if when you have a clear case of entrapment, which is not applicable here, because there was never any intent to misinform Apple about what the tax laws actually are.
How idiotic does a person have to be to not think of covering the leds up with masking tape? People still wouldn't see the lights, but they'd see the tape, and realize that the tape is covering them up and not that they are not even lit.
Even LED's from the 1970's would cast visible shadows in a darkened room. I remember when I was a kid using the green led that was on the side of a toy that I had to read under the covers in bed. I remember that I couldn't read by the light of the red one, however, although I wasn't sure why... because the red and green leds did appear to be about equally bright.
Obviously, but the basis for disqualification is (our should be) actually only based on their ability to do the job, and it may only happen to be the case that a disability impacts ability to perform the tasks that the job requires. Autism may or may not make a person a better software engineer (I suspect it does, but I won't try to make an argument here for it), but even if it did, using that disability as a basis for discrimination to prefer those people in such positions rather than only on their actual ability as a software engineer is just as unfair to people who are neurotypical as discriminating against them is to those with autism.
Favoring a particular demographic because they have a particular disability is still discrimination. If it's against the law to discriminate against someone because of a disability, it should not matter whether they actually have that disability or not.... one should not be using said disability as a basis for discrimination, period.
Perhaps.... but it wouldn't have been an issue if you had just said what you actually meant in the first place instead of dancing around your initial point with claims that only appeared to substantiate a deliberate intention to stand behind the initial assertion. While I understand that people don't always literally mean what they say, you could have easily clarified this issue when I asked about it. At no point during this discourse did you even say anything like "well that's not what I really meant", particularly in response to (#52845265), where I would think it should have been at least somewhat clear to you that I was confused as to how what you were talking about was compatible with that initial viewpoint, and your response to that gave me no reason to assume that what you had said initially was not what you consciously intended to convey.
You lost me on this one... but owing to the fact that this discussion has apparently devolved into ad-hominems, I'm not sure how constructive I can expect your response to be.
If the 3.5 jack truly and objectively needed to go, Apple should have replaced it with a second lightning port or even another entirely proprietary port they might try and argue was superior, or ideally, not removed it entirely. The lack of a separate port for headphones makes it impossible to charge the device while using wired headphones without having a separate very-easy-to-lose-but-still-not-cheap hub, impacting not only potential portability to say the least, but it also has significant accessibility implications.
Nobody says that you have to write an app in Java for it to work on Android, actually. When I was working as a game dev a few years ago, I actually wrote more apps using ndk than I did using Java. However... while Java may be less than ideal for systems that requite the handling of fast-changing circumstances like what you might need for a video game, for instance, in terms of user-interaction, Java on Android is not generally going to be the bottleneck on performance. To be perfectly frank, the cpu usage problems you have had with Android are probably more likely attributable to the actual devices or even possibly badly written applications you have used than they are to Java.
[nt]
The problem with that is "clear" and "unambiguous" are actually subjective notions. The inability to clearly comprehend something that requires a level of comprehension that has not yet been achieved is not a failing in what is being communicated.
In a nutshell, this reduces to the notion that there is no way for something to be perfect unless everyone is exactly the same. I'm not saying the Quran (or anything else, necessarily) is perfect, but I think your argument is flawed.