OK: fetuses aren't babies. I guess we need to define what a "baby" is, don't we? Google returns this definition:
a very young child, esp. one newly or recently born.
So, what's a child?
a young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority.
Below the age of puberty. What is the age of a fetus? As a society, we don't even assign an age to a fetus, do we? We start keeping track of age from the point of birth. A fetus does not have an age until it is born and becomes a baby. The day after a baby is born, how old is it? It's a 1-day old baby. It's not a 9-month old baby.
If you really want to talk about language, look at how people refer to the age of a fetus. When most people ask a pregnant woman about something like the age of the fetus, they ask questions like "how far along are you?" "When are you due?" They're not asking questions about the fetus, they're asking about the mother. The fetus isn't a person yet.
Our history has been very clear about what we consider the start of a life - we consider a life to begin when a baby is born. A person's age is not tracked from the time of conception, it is tracked from the time of birth (and this is regardless of how late or early the birth was, or how developed the baby was when it was born). You don't claim a tax dependent from the moment you knock up a woman, you get a dependent when the baby is born. When a woman has a stillbirth or miscarriage, there is generally not a homicide investigation or funeral or death certificate. It was a life that never even started.
So, clearly we have decided that a fetus is not a baby. Why should all of that change because some politicians want to convince the religious segments of society to vote for them?
That's one of the problems, yeah. They weren't convicted of crimes necessarily violating Islam, the crimes are state crimes. "Encouraging vice" is a crime that gives the state a lot of leeway in defining "vice". So does "violating public morality". It happens that in this case they look to Islam to define their public morality, but any time you have a state where simply violating public morality is a crime then you open the system up to a lot of abuse and disproportionate or unequal sentences.
So yes, the state ideology that criminalizes things like that is the problem. It's hardly even relevant what the source of their so-called morality is.
I think it is unethical to continue releasing the data.
Don't worry, if the government wasn't doing anything wrong then it has nothing to hide.
Or maybe that old line is bullshit and the government knows it. Maybe the right to privacy exists for a reason. Exposing how world governments spy on their people is long overdue. The governments didn't want to have this discussion before, they wanted to keep everything hidden, but they decided to go a little too far so now we need to have the talk.
Nearly every OD is because some one got an unexpectedly pure batch and used what they thought was their regular dose.
Their "regular dose" of heroin? How many heroin addicts have you lived with? The ones I've lived with have described a tolerance to heroin like you would build up with anything else (nicotine, alcohol, etc). They slowly raise the dose to keep achieving the same or a better high, and one day the dose is too much for them. Could be the same stuff they've always been getting, they just wanted to reach the next level. If you're talking about someone with a "regular dose" then you're talking about an addict, and that is the behavior of an addict. There aren't a lot of casual heroin users out there.
You're acting like heroin is a relatively benign substance, and it's only dangerous if the government is not regulating it. It's dangerous regardless, heroin users will continue to die regardless of the regulation involved with heroin. They will continue to die because they are addicted to a substance that is toxic, and they keep wanting to do a little bit more as they build up a tolerance.
I'm not arguing in favor of more government restrictions, but there's no reason to pretend that heroin is anything other than what it actually is.
it's almost impossible to understand how fox news became the mainstream media.
Because it's virtually the only option for people who demand a heavy conservative bias in their news, which makes Fox the most-watched news network. The other networks have to share the liberal audience, but Fox gets all of the conservative pie.
Things are banned in the real world because they either don't work and cause all sorts of problems for no benefit, or they are incredibly effective to the point of being too dangerous. Torture on one end of the spectrum, chemical weapons on the other.
That line always seems a little bit ridiculous to me. The concept of "rules of war" in general is just odd. How about this rule: no war? No? That's not going to work for everyone?
I was visiting my brother-in-law at Camp Pendleton and checking out the museum of things that blow up. One of them was a grenade, I think a 40mm grenade for a launcher, and it was cut away and on the inside were maybe 40 flechettes, basically tiny darts or nails. So the grenade blows up, and whoever is nearby gets loaded with holes. But they outlawed putting an anti-coagulant agent on the flechettes. So it's fine to fill a guy with 40 holes, but you have to give him a chance to clot, or that's just mean.
That was my experience with the America's Army game. My first game I was nervous and a little trigger happy and shot my teammates when they rounded a corner. I got shipped off to Ft. Leavenworth and decided I didn't like that game so much.
They could remedy that in GTA by introducing a permanent wanted level system. Each time you commit a crime that has a witness, it raises your permanent wanted level. It could get to the point where a cop starts chasing you as soon as he sees you, even calling in backup, or having cops waiting outside your house when you leave. Getting caught with a high enough wanted level would forfeit all of your money and maybe a house or two, or whatever cars you have in garages. It would make it more realistic, but let's be fair, part of the appeal of those games is the fact that it is not realistic.
Because it appears to be the first one, and media might still remember the Fisker Karmas that ignited after hurricane Sandy. Personally, I still want a Tesla.
I actually drove right by a vehicle fire today, on the 51 freeway in north Phoenix, around maybe 7th ave or so. It was a 90s-model Chevy pickup truck, with the engine compartment and front tires on fire (smelled fantastic, by the way). The thing I thought most impressive was that the lighted sign only about a mile before it already said there was a vehicle fire ahead, but when I got there it seemed like it had only started minutes before because of how small it was (hell, the tires hadn't even popped yet), and the fire truck didn't even have any people outside of it. I thought that it was really efficient for those lighted sign people to get that up so quick, they're really on the ball. I thought the government was shut down, but I still get a helpful sign that says there's a vehicle fire ahead, presumably at the base of the column of black smoke that I can clearly see.
You choose to not pay for the software that you prefer to use because you don't want to give your credit card number to Adobe? After which episode that Adobe had credit card records stolen from it did you make that decision? How long ago was that? How many times has Adobe been attacked and had customer credit card information stolen? You're sure that's not just a lame justification for not wanting to pay for the software that you prefer to use?
There have been 1500 injuries, but keep in mind this is a country of 1.3 billion people. That's 0.0011% of the population.
No no, you have that wrong.
There have been 1500 injuries, but keep in mind that this is a planet of 7 billion people. That's only 2.14e-7% of the population.
That's how statistics works, right? It doesn't matter if they find 710 nests in a certain region, what matters is how many people there are in a much much larger region. Just don't go to that smaller region, problem solved. If anyone gets stung, act all shocked and say "wow, you know you only had a 2.14e-7% chance of that happening. Go play the lottery. And maybe clear the hornet nest out from underneath your house, because I'm not sure how that affects your odds."
By definition, no. Rational debate is part of the scientific process. The hallmark and definition of a troll is not about rational debate. A troll doesn't even play a good devil's advocate, they're just there to irritate people. That's part of why so many people get sucked into a troll debate - they're expecting a rational debate and the person they are debating is just there to irritate people.
The mean factually incorrect things could still be modded up.
There might be a way to combat that, though. You could possibly employ some sort of system where the moderations themselves could get moderated, maybe even allocate moderation points to those users who consistently make good moderations, and give fewer or no points to those whose moderations get consistently labeled as incorrect or inappropriate. I wonder if a system like that would work.
I don't know if Tor is compromised or not, but according to the complaint they were on to him since 2011. He used an account called "altoid" on the regular net to both promote the launch of the site, and elsewhere to solicit IT help directing people to his personal Gmail address (with his name right there in it).
Slashdot Mirror
There is no law in Islam that states that female testimony is not valid. Only that it takes 2 women's testimony to be counted as 1.
That sounds suspiciously like "the testimony of 1 woman is not valid."
You can say that fetuses aren't babies
OK: fetuses aren't babies. I guess we need to define what a "baby" is, don't we? Google returns this definition:
a very young child, esp. one newly or recently born.
So, what's a child?
a young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority.
Below the age of puberty. What is the age of a fetus? As a society, we don't even assign an age to a fetus, do we? We start keeping track of age from the point of birth. A fetus does not have an age until it is born and becomes a baby. The day after a baby is born, how old is it? It's a 1-day old baby. It's not a 9-month old baby.
If you really want to talk about language, look at how people refer to the age of a fetus. When most people ask a pregnant woman about something like the age of the fetus, they ask questions like "how far along are you?" "When are you due?" They're not asking questions about the fetus, they're asking about the mother. The fetus isn't a person yet.
Our history has been very clear about what we consider the start of a life - we consider a life to begin when a baby is born. A person's age is not tracked from the time of conception, it is tracked from the time of birth (and this is regardless of how late or early the birth was, or how developed the baby was when it was born). You don't claim a tax dependent from the moment you knock up a woman, you get a dependent when the baby is born. When a woman has a stillbirth or miscarriage, there is generally not a homicide investigation or funeral or death certificate. It was a life that never even started.
So, clearly we have decided that a fetus is not a baby. Why should all of that change because some politicians want to convince the religious segments of society to vote for them?
That's one of the problems, yeah. They weren't convicted of crimes necessarily violating Islam, the crimes are state crimes. "Encouraging vice" is a crime that gives the state a lot of leeway in defining "vice". So does "violating public morality". It happens that in this case they look to Islam to define their public morality, but any time you have a state where simply violating public morality is a crime then you open the system up to a lot of abuse and disproportionate or unequal sentences.
So yes, the state ideology that criminalizes things like that is the problem. It's hardly even relevant what the source of their so-called morality is.
I think it is unethical to continue releasing the data.
Don't worry, if the government wasn't doing anything wrong then it has nothing to hide.
Or maybe that old line is bullshit and the government knows it. Maybe the right to privacy exists for a reason. Exposing how world governments spy on their people is long overdue. The governments didn't want to have this discussion before, they wanted to keep everything hidden, but they decided to go a little too far so now we need to have the talk.
Any of those little blurbs, even if not the actual cause of death, would have been very useful.
You watch Fox News, don't you?
"I don't care if it's true, I just want someone to tell me something."
Nearly every OD is because some one got an unexpectedly pure batch and used what they thought was their regular dose.
Their "regular dose" of heroin? How many heroin addicts have you lived with? The ones I've lived with have described a tolerance to heroin like you would build up with anything else (nicotine, alcohol, etc). They slowly raise the dose to keep achieving the same or a better high, and one day the dose is too much for them. Could be the same stuff they've always been getting, they just wanted to reach the next level. If you're talking about someone with a "regular dose" then you're talking about an addict, and that is the behavior of an addict. There aren't a lot of casual heroin users out there.
You're acting like heroin is a relatively benign substance, and it's only dangerous if the government is not regulating it. It's dangerous regardless, heroin users will continue to die regardless of the regulation involved with heroin. They will continue to die because they are addicted to a substance that is toxic, and they keep wanting to do a little bit more as they build up a tolerance.
I'm not arguing in favor of more government restrictions, but there's no reason to pretend that heroin is anything other than what it actually is.
people used their real names and addresses on Silk Rd as sellers
I don't see that information anywhere. It could be as simple as them using an email address that they've used on another site.
The UK demanding a Canadian based firm use UK law while in Canadian, while domain in question is for a company in a Singapore?
Perhaps the UK should have their head of state take up the matter with Canada's head of state.
all but 80% of this
That's kind of a weird way to say 20%.
it's almost impossible to understand how fox news became the mainstream media.
Because it's virtually the only option for people who demand a heavy conservative bias in their news, which makes Fox the most-watched news network. The other networks have to share the liberal audience, but Fox gets all of the conservative pie.
US news agencies are busy covering government shutdown.
Unless they are Fox News, it which case it is a slimdown and not a shutdown.
Things are banned in the real world because they either don't work and cause all sorts of problems for no benefit, or they are incredibly effective to the point of being too dangerous. Torture on one end of the spectrum, chemical weapons on the other.
That line always seems a little bit ridiculous to me. The concept of "rules of war" in general is just odd. How about this rule: no war? No? That's not going to work for everyone?
I was visiting my brother-in-law at Camp Pendleton and checking out the museum of things that blow up. One of them was a grenade, I think a 40mm grenade for a launcher, and it was cut away and on the inside were maybe 40 flechettes, basically tiny darts or nails. So the grenade blows up, and whoever is nearby gets loaded with holes. But they outlawed putting an anti-coagulant agent on the flechettes. So it's fine to fill a guy with 40 holes, but you have to give him a chance to clot, or that's just mean.
That was my experience with the America's Army game. My first game I was nervous and a little trigger happy and shot my teammates when they rounded a corner. I got shipped off to Ft. Leavenworth and decided I didn't like that game so much.
They could remedy that in GTA by introducing a permanent wanted level system. Each time you commit a crime that has a witness, it raises your permanent wanted level. It could get to the point where a cop starts chasing you as soon as he sees you, even calling in backup, or having cops waiting outside your house when you leave. Getting caught with a high enough wanted level would forfeit all of your money and maybe a house or two, or whatever cars you have in garages. It would make it more realistic, but let's be fair, part of the appeal of those games is the fact that it is not realistic.
Because it appears to be the first one, and media might still remember the Fisker Karmas that ignited after hurricane Sandy. Personally, I still want a Tesla.
I actually drove right by a vehicle fire today, on the 51 freeway in north Phoenix, around maybe 7th ave or so. It was a 90s-model Chevy pickup truck, with the engine compartment and front tires on fire (smelled fantastic, by the way). The thing I thought most impressive was that the lighted sign only about a mile before it already said there was a vehicle fire ahead, but when I got there it seemed like it had only started minutes before because of how small it was (hell, the tires hadn't even popped yet), and the fire truck didn't even have any people outside of it. I thought that it was really efficient for those lighted sign people to get that up so quick, they're really on the ball. I thought the government was shut down, but I still get a helpful sign that says there's a vehicle fire ahead, presumably at the base of the column of black smoke that I can clearly see.
I have a fantastic sense of humor. Which is not mutually-exclusive with being socially retarded.
I'm a programmer, not a cunning linguist. Taking things at face value is my specialty.
And I don't have to "climb up" on some high horse, you clod, I'm here all the time.
You choose to not pay for the software that you prefer to use because you don't want to give your credit card number to Adobe? After which episode that Adobe had credit card records stolen from it did you make that decision? How long ago was that? How many times has Adobe been attacked and had customer credit card information stolen? You're sure that's not just a lame justification for not wanting to pay for the software that you prefer to use?
My neighbor was encouraging me to pour a cup of gasoline down the holes and then light it but I didn't want to poison the ground.
1. Fill a large pot with water and put it on a lit stove.
2. Bring the water to a boil.
3. Pour the water down the hole.
Slightly less toxic than expanding insulation foam. Also collapses tunnels.
There have been 1500 injuries, but keep in mind this is a country of 1.3 billion people. That's 0.0011% of the population.
No no, you have that wrong.
There have been 1500 injuries, but keep in mind that this is a planet of 7 billion people. That's only 2.14e-7% of the population.
That's how statistics works, right? It doesn't matter if they find 710 nests in a certain region, what matters is how many people there are in a much much larger region. Just don't go to that smaller region, problem solved. If anyone gets stung, act all shocked and say "wow, you know you only had a 2.14e-7% chance of that happening. Go play the lottery. And maybe clear the hornet nest out from underneath your house, because I'm not sure how that affects your odds."
People with too much time on their hands, I guess. Or the NSA (of course).
By definition, no. Rational debate is part of the scientific process. The hallmark and definition of a troll is not about rational debate. A troll doesn't even play a good devil's advocate, they're just there to irritate people. That's part of why so many people get sucked into a troll debate - they're expecting a rational debate and the person they are debating is just there to irritate people.
The mean factually incorrect things could still be modded up.
There might be a way to combat that, though. You could possibly employ some sort of system where the moderations themselves could get moderated, maybe even allocate moderation points to those users who consistently make good moderations, and give fewer or no points to those whose moderations get consistently labeled as incorrect or inappropriate. I wonder if a system like that would work.
I don't know if Tor is compromised or not, but according to the complaint they were on to him since 2011. He used an account called "altoid" on the regular net to both promote the launch of the site, and elsewhere to solicit IT help directing people to his personal Gmail address (with his name right there in it).