I'm a big supporter of nuclear power but to be fair Nuclear power kills fish too nearly any way you wing it. Those puppies need water cooling so most are built near large bodies of water. Even if they cool their water properly (cooling towers or canals) so that they don't mess the fish up by raising the temperature of the body of water at all there's no getting around the fact that those intake pipes are going to suck in some fish and other larger animals can often get stuck on the mesh.
I know one plant was required to build a "slide for life" to get some of the fish out of the intake. Got the fish out all-right, but their fate wasn't much delayed. The birds on the other hand, thought it was the best fucking invention ever.
Do you count the cost of the original coke can when the aluminum is recycled and resold and then made into a new coke can in an infinite loop until you say we shouldn't recycle because now that coke can costs $20,000 or do you simply count the cost of the aluminum the recyclers sells you versus the cost the freshly mined/processed aluminum?
When you say every business covered by the ADA you mean employment at said businesses. I agree, when a video game company hires a disabled person they must make the needed accommodations.
However, this is buying a product. A video game is a private product, not a publicly funded and provided one. Furthermore, no ones access to said product is being denied, only their enjoyment of it. If people can't get into the gamestop store because there is no wheelchair ramp that is a problem for gamestop to solve. If they can't play MW2 well when they get home because their blind that's the blind person's problem for buying a VIDEO game. Yea, it sucks. Being blind sucks. Thats why it's a DISability.
If Sony could make you see again I'm sure they'd love to sell you that product. Of course it'd probably come with some sort of DRM with a root kit designed to prevent you from describing any sony copyrighted images you saw.
So being such a fan of the constitution and it's original intent, and only wanting to break immoral laws I'm to assume that you only download songs, movies and TV shows a full 28 years after they come out if their author is still alive as the copyright act of 1790 states?
I mean clearly the RIAA being capable of only traveling 165 years back in time were only able to up copyright laws in 1830 to 28 years with another 14 year renewal if the author is still alive thus we can ignore that pesky 42 year requirement as the start of immoral and unjust tampering with the constitution.
Or do you have some sort of justification for downloading it early to teach them a lesson of course, nothing to do with you wanting a commodity without having to pay the asked price.
Sorry if you thought I was accusing you of illegal activities, I meant to simply question the ethical stance on the law. The issue of legality aside why would those things be ethically OK?
I am against the current copyright laws because they are out dated. They were designed to prevent illegal copying and profit of one's work. This inspired people to create original content and not copy others. Unfortunately this is used to stop people from accessing media they enjoy.
So because you enjoy one's work it is OK to illegally copy it so you can enjoy it for free? Is this OK with paintings? If a painter spends months making a painting is it OK for someone else to make prints of it and distribute it for free because no babies are getting killed or do the rules change for physical mediums because they feel more real and therefore you have an actual sense of stealing?
Your currently claimed difference implies the moral line resides with the person committing the action, and that for something to be wrong the person committing the action has to obviously know that it is wrong for it to be not OK.
By that logic as long as I obviously didn't think it was wrong I could walk into your garage and use your car, as long as i didn't try to run or hide behind some law ans was just like, "oh, what's wrong with that?" Note I'm not saying that's a direct parallel to downloading copyrighted material, I'm just saying that's a direct parallel to what you claim the difference to be between allowing people to download music you don't own and making a profit and letting people download music you don't own for free.
Whether we agree with an action or not, like the enforcement of copyright, has everything to do with where we draw our moral lines as far as our ideas of ownership and stealing, hence the question;)
Are we against this because he was selling the songs for profit? If there wasn't a price tag attached to his download page it'd be OK and we'd be railing against the lawyers and laws right? Just checking where our moral line falls today.
I'm not sure not spending money on space flight in a conservative philosophy as I at least would consider space abilities to be very much in line with providing for the national defense. There's a lot of overlapping technology and abilities in that realm and most conservatives don't have a problem with the government spending money on programs that are huge boons to our technology/industry/defense sectors. I've lived in both New York and conservative North Carolina and I've never heard any backwoods Conservatives down there complaining about spending money on NASA. But I have heard a lot of saved the world through government programs liberals complain about spending money on space flight when we could be feeding people instead. In reality I think there are people on both sides of the fence that support it and people on both sides of the fence that don't
Either way the one thing we POSITIVELY want to avoid is anyone managing to label supporting space exploration as a "liberal" or "conservative" policy and having party lines drawn on the issue as that way we'll never get it done. Space Exploration isn't something we can accomplish during the time span that one party is in power, it has to be a common endeavor supported by the entire nation.
I'd say even less then that. Even relatively minor things such as border disputes or small scale conflicts require far more thought and consideration of worth if both sides are packing enough nukes to wipe out the other and claim to be willing to do so.
Someone wouldn't have needed to otherwise be willing to commit the other country to nuclear holocaust for MAD to have worked. Someone would have just needed to think more carefully before taking any action to provoke the other side on any issue that might have otherwise escalated in lieu of an answer to "What are they going to do about it?".
In that case I think either I misread or you mistyped and we're in agreement. I thought you said they didn't want a man in the loop because the man could be subverted by the enemy. Probably because you said:
I don't think they want a man in the loop simply because you would have a weapon system that could be subverted by the enemy.
To clarify, are you arguing if there's going to be any computer control of fire support it should be fully autonomous or not at all due to fear of the operator interface getting hacked or are you saying that no such device should be able to make a fire decision without a human at the controls?
That's akin to saying you wouldn't trust your squadmate to cover your ass in battle because he could be subverted by the enemy. Military is going to trust their brothers in arms that have fought and bled beside them far more then some piece of code.
Mainly because unlike a robot their buddy isn't going to hang him out to dry without care or regard if the contractors that put his helmet together didn't properly ensure the security between it and the company that put the chinstrap together.
If "punishing the wealthy" was a strawman that the rich were perpetuating then wouldn't that mean they would argue how punishing the wealthy doesn't actually exist or is easily disproved and then use that to incorrectly claim some entire argument is therefore invalid?
A view or claim that a person is perpetuating that they themselves subscribe to is not a strawman, it's just that, a view or a claim. A strawman is when a person sets up a false or flawed claim for their opponent, and then knocks that false claim down in order to say their opponents entire viewpoint is invalid.
licensing issues, the extra overhead of programming that, the extra overhead of dealing with advertisement firms in hundreds of different countries or finding companies that have both the advertising budget to make umpteen different adverts for different locations and the international presence for it to be worth their while. That's a shit ton of work, which equals a shit ton of investment money required to set it up before the returns start coming in. I'm sure if Hulu had unlimited resources they'd love to get this set up and start raking in more money, but they can't do this until they have the resources to afford it and the business plan to make it profitable for them. If this were easy to do and obviously extremely profitable you'd be doing it yourself, no?
If you truly believe that's explained by a jock/nerd paradigm shift and not a difference in circumstance between a conventional force on force conflict and an insurgency embedded in a local populace then I don't think I want you managing military strategy as a nerd or a jock =P
Right, that must be why all the nerds in high school ended up in the Marines, Army and other best fighting forces on Earth and all the jocks ended up sitting around in their parent's basements lifting weights and playing CoD4 wishing they were badass and smart like us.
Safety is relative. In the case of power generation, safety is relative to worst case possibilities of a Nuclear Plant. Care to enlighten us as to how nuetron flux and radioactive embrittlement of the containment shell can result in the deaths and long-term health side-effects of the surrounding community for miles around and render the area uninhabitable for years as is the case with a worst case fuck-all-safety-mechanisms nuclear power plant disaster? Because I'm not sure you could pull that off here even if a Terrorist had the full support of the entire facility staff and two weeks to try to accomplish it.
My guess would be Obama and his staff have a little more tack then to have told Australia: "So, show me how you fucked this all up so I can make sure not to do that.";)
Let me clear things up for you. I do not live in Spain. I also do not live 600 years in the past and travel to the future to post on Slashdot about my views on spending money to explore the New World. I was pointing out that the same argument against space travel that the parent I replied to was making could have been made about exploring the New World which led to many unforeseen benefits or really any other human endeavor.
Further Analysis
From what we can gather from the dialogue and gritty video, the role of the playable character is that of a C.I.A. operative who has infiltrated the group in order to gather intel. The loading screen, which reveals the transition between playable characters and factions, begins with a C.I.A. logo and morphs into the logo of the Russian ultranationalist organization which the game's antagonist, Vladimir Makarov, leads. The graphical transition is accompanied by an alteration to the C.I.A. text directly below the logo, which is then extended and followed by illegible words, presumably identifying the official title of the ultranationalist faction. Clues after the loading screen are hard to identify, however, the theory is later reaffirmed when Makarov shoots your character as you attempt to climb into the getaway van, and says "Here's your message," almost teasing your character for the presumption that your infiltration had gone unrecognized.
So you are undercover, and can probably get away with not shooting anyone yourself.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm a big supporter of nuclear power but to be fair Nuclear power kills fish too nearly any way you wing it. Those puppies need water cooling so most are built near large bodies of water. Even if they cool their water properly (cooling towers or canals) so that they don't mess the fish up by raising the temperature of the body of water at all there's no getting around the fact that those intake pipes are going to suck in some fish and other larger animals can often get stuck on the mesh.
I know one plant was required to build a "slide for life" to get some of the fish out of the intake. Got the fish out all-right, but their fate wasn't much delayed. The birds on the other hand, thought it was the best fucking invention ever.
Do you count the cost of the original coke can when the aluminum is recycled and resold and then made into a new coke can in an infinite loop until you say we shouldn't recycle because now that coke can costs $20,000 or do you simply count the cost of the aluminum the recyclers sells you versus the cost the freshly mined/processed aluminum?
When you say every business covered by the ADA you mean employment at said businesses. I agree, when a video game company hires a disabled person they must make the needed accommodations.
However, this is buying a product. A video game is a private product, not a publicly funded and provided one. Furthermore, no ones access to said product is being denied, only their enjoyment of it. If people can't get into the gamestop store because there is no wheelchair ramp that is a problem for gamestop to solve. If they can't play MW2 well when they get home because their blind that's the blind person's problem for buying a VIDEO game. Yea, it sucks. Being blind sucks. Thats why it's a DISability.
If Sony could make you see again I'm sure they'd love to sell you that product. Of course it'd probably come with some sort of DRM with a root kit designed to prevent you from describing any sony copyrighted images you saw.
Reasonable accommodations are in the eye of the beholder.
The only problem is once you rip them out they tend to start identifying closely with the disabled.
So being such a fan of the constitution and it's original intent, and only wanting to break immoral laws I'm to assume that you only download songs, movies and TV shows a full 28 years after they come out if their author is still alive as the copyright act of 1790 states?
I mean clearly the RIAA being capable of only traveling 165 years back in time were only able to up copyright laws in 1830 to 28 years with another 14 year renewal if the author is still alive thus we can ignore that pesky 42 year requirement as the start of immoral and unjust tampering with the constitution.
Or do you have some sort of justification for downloading it early to teach them a lesson of course, nothing to do with you wanting a commodity without having to pay the asked price.
Sorry if you thought I was accusing you of illegal activities, I meant to simply question the ethical stance on the law. The issue of legality aside why would those things be ethically OK?
ummm, because people's time and money went into producing it. Why should you be paid for whatever job you do?
I am against the current copyright laws because they are out dated. They were designed to prevent illegal copying and profit of one's work. This inspired people to create original content and not copy others. Unfortunately this is used to stop people from accessing media they enjoy.
So because you enjoy one's work it is OK to illegally copy it so you can enjoy it for free? Is this OK with paintings? If a painter spends months making a painting is it OK for someone else to make prints of it and distribute it for free because no babies are getting killed or do the rules change for physical mediums because they feel more real and therefore you have an actual sense of stealing?
Your currently claimed difference implies the moral line resides with the person committing the action, and that for something to be wrong the person committing the action has to obviously know that it is wrong for it to be not OK.
By that logic as long as I obviously didn't think it was wrong I could walk into your garage and use your car, as long as i didn't try to run or hide behind some law ans was just like, "oh, what's wrong with that?" Note I'm not saying that's a direct parallel to downloading copyrighted material, I'm just saying that's a direct parallel to what you claim the difference to be between allowing people to download music you don't own and making a profit and letting people download music you don't own for free.
Whether we agree with an action or not, like the enforcement of copyright, has everything to do with where we draw our moral lines as far as our ideas of ownership and stealing, hence the question ;)
Are we against this because he was selling the songs for profit? If there wasn't a price tag attached to his download page it'd be OK and we'd be railing against the lawyers and laws right? Just checking where our moral line falls today.
They decided people weren't taking FDR's warning seriously enough so they'd give us a damn good reason to fear fear itself.
I'm not sure not spending money on space flight in a conservative philosophy as I at least would consider space abilities to be very much in line with providing for the national defense. There's a lot of overlapping technology and abilities in that realm and most conservatives don't have a problem with the government spending money on programs that are huge boons to our technology/industry/defense sectors. I've lived in both New York and conservative North Carolina and I've never heard any backwoods Conservatives down there complaining about spending money on NASA. But I have heard a lot of saved the world through government programs liberals complain about spending money on space flight when we could be feeding people instead. In reality I think there are people on both sides of the fence that support it and people on both sides of the fence that don't
Either way the one thing we POSITIVELY want to avoid is anyone managing to label supporting space exploration as a "liberal" or "conservative" policy and having party lines drawn on the issue as that way we'll never get it done. Space Exploration isn't something we can accomplish during the time span that one party is in power, it has to be a common endeavor supported by the entire nation.
I'd say even less then that. Even relatively minor things such as border disputes or small scale conflicts require far more thought and consideration of worth if both sides are packing enough nukes to wipe out the other and claim to be willing to do so.
Someone wouldn't have needed to otherwise be willing to commit the other country to nuclear holocaust for MAD to have worked. Someone would have just needed to think more carefully before taking any action to provoke the other side on any issue that might have otherwise escalated in lieu of an answer to "What are they going to do about it?".
In that case I think either I misread or you mistyped and we're in agreement. I thought you said they didn't want a man in the loop because the man could be subverted by the enemy. Probably because you said:
I don't think they want a man in the loop simply because you would have a weapon system that could be subverted by the enemy.
To clarify, are you arguing if there's going to be any computer control of fire support it should be fully autonomous or not at all due to fear of the operator interface getting hacked or are you saying that no such device should be able to make a fire decision without a human at the controls?
That's akin to saying you wouldn't trust your squadmate to cover your ass in battle because he could be subverted by the enemy. Military is going to trust their brothers in arms that have fought and bled beside them far more then some piece of code.
Mainly because unlike a robot their buddy isn't going to hang him out to dry without care or regard if the contractors that put his helmet together didn't properly ensure the security between it and the company that put the chinstrap together.
If "punishing the wealthy" was a strawman that the rich were perpetuating then wouldn't that mean they would argue how punishing the wealthy doesn't actually exist or is easily disproved and then use that to incorrectly claim some entire argument is therefore invalid?
A view or claim that a person is perpetuating that they themselves subscribe to is not a strawman, it's just that, a view or a claim. A strawman is when a person sets up a false or flawed claim for their opponent, and then knocks that false claim down in order to say their opponents entire viewpoint is invalid.
licensing issues, the extra overhead of programming that, the extra overhead of dealing with advertisement firms in hundreds of different countries or finding companies that have both the advertising budget to make umpteen different adverts for different locations and the international presence for it to be worth their while. That's a shit ton of work, which equals a shit ton of investment money required to set it up before the returns start coming in. I'm sure if Hulu had unlimited resources they'd love to get this set up and start raking in more money, but they can't do this until they have the resources to afford it and the business plan to make it profitable for them. If this were easy to do and obviously extremely profitable you'd be doing it yourself, no?
If you truly believe that's explained by a jock/nerd paradigm shift and not a difference in circumstance between a conventional force on force conflict and an insurgency embedded in a local populace then I don't think I want you managing military strategy as a nerd or a jock =P
Right, that must be why all the nerds in high school ended up in the Marines, Army and other best fighting forces on Earth and all the jocks ended up sitting around in their parent's basements lifting weights and playing CoD4 wishing they were badass and smart like us.
Sounds like he had a thing for you and really bad pickup lines.
Safety is relative. In the case of power generation, safety is relative to worst case possibilities of a Nuclear Plant. Care to enlighten us as to how nuetron flux and radioactive embrittlement of the containment shell can result in the deaths and long-term health side-effects of the surrounding community for miles around and render the area uninhabitable for years as is the case with a worst case fuck-all-safety-mechanisms nuclear power plant disaster? Because I'm not sure you could pull that off here even if a Terrorist had the full support of the entire facility staff and two weeks to try to accomplish it.
My guess would be Obama and his staff have a little more tack then to have told Australia: "So, show me how you fucked this all up so I can make sure not to do that." ;)
Let me clear things up for you. I do not live in Spain. I also do not live 600 years in the past and travel to the future to post on Slashdot about my views on spending money to explore the New World. I was pointing out that the same argument against space travel that the parent I replied to was making could have been made about exploring the New World which led to many unforeseen benefits or really any other human endeavor.
Further Analysis From what we can gather from the dialogue and gritty video, the role of the playable character is that of a C.I.A. operative who has infiltrated the group in order to gather intel. The loading screen, which reveals the transition between playable characters and factions, begins with a C.I.A. logo and morphs into the logo of the Russian ultranationalist organization which the game's antagonist, Vladimir Makarov, leads. The graphical transition is accompanied by an alteration to the C.I.A. text directly below the logo, which is then extended and followed by illegible words, presumably identifying the official title of the ultranationalist faction. Clues after the loading screen are hard to identify, however, the theory is later reaffirmed when Makarov shoots your character as you attempt to climb into the getaway van, and says "Here's your message," almost teasing your character for the presumption that your infiltration had gone unrecognized.
So you are undercover, and can probably get away with not shooting anyone yourself.