Except that it's never about God. It's always about a charismatic individual's self interest. The only thing God does is get people to listen and then take the blame for when things don't go according to plan.
You can't change the terms of a license that both parties have agreed to, but you can change it for future users (or future versions). I honestly haven't read TFA and barely skimmed TFS, so I don't know what's going on here - but generally speaking it is perfectly alright for somebody to change the conditions under which their products or services are provided.
Thanks for the insight... Hard to believe how many people are posting here bemoaning the fact that they don't meet the requirements - insisting that NASAs job description is too specific and should be broadened. Justifying how their lack of the right degree, ambition, or "large frame" wouldn't really hold them back. Fact is, there are thousands of people that meet those requirements and could do the job. We just aren't those people.
I don't think "Astronaut" is considered an entry level career. The people who apply don't just wake up one morning and decide "I'm sick of this job, I'm gonna apply to be an astronaut." They work their asses off and form their careers around it.
Please... the vast majority of people meet the height requirements - too short or two tall falls out of design decisions for the hardware the people need to fit through. The rest is physical condition which the qualified candidates will put a lot of time into meeting. Sure there will be people who are otherwise qualified but too short or too tall or vision that can't be corrected through surgery and that is all unfortunate, but to claim you need genetically engineered people when the physical requirements *could* be met by the vast majority of the population (if they'd put down their cheetos and go for a run....) is simply ridiculous.
Education and experience is a different story... You know how just about every kid wanted to be an astronaut? Well the ones that were serious about it would meet these prerequisites. They'd have become military or commercial pilots, moved on as a test pilot, gotten an engineering background. Fact is, just about anybody *could* have been an astronaut had they really set their minds to it early on and stuck with it. It's hard work and very few people are willing to put forth the effort. If you don't meet those requirements... well you, like me, seem to have picked a different life for yourself.
The Roadster would compare with the 911... This guy you'd want to compare with their four door (Panamera or some other such silly name). In any case, it is surprisingly price competitive for the luxury sedan market.
I'll give you that our society is what enables us to make our money and prosper - but that is a two way street. My work and productivity is what keeps this society going, and we can argue until we're blue in the face over who provides the bigger share of prosperity: the builder (me), or the enabler (gov't). Fact is, both contribute significantly and it is an extremely dangerous proposition to assume that the government is entitled to everything I produce simply because they allow me to produce it. Are you forgetting our recent historical experiences with societies in which the government and people are entitled to everything produced by society? Are you remembering the collapse of the USSR, what is happening in North Korea, or China's history up until recently?
There is a balance to be struck here for what is due in taxes. It's not none, but it certainly isn't all.
Lower taxes is great - I think we all agree with you there - but you can't lower taxes without the corresponding cuts to spending or you get *exactly* the problem our nation is facing now: lowered taxes and out of control debt. Congress can't manage to agree on what to cut spending on: Dems won't give up social programs, Repubs won't give up military spending. However, they can both agree on on lowering taxes for the next election cycle and letting Future America deal with the debt. *That* is how lowering taxes is a bad thing: Buying tons of stuff you can't afford, and then cutting back your income.
I'm talking about people being more open talking about sex, and you somehow assume that I mean the government should take over and force the matter? Some folks just want to see the same boogeyman behind every door...
I absolutely don't like how a lot of parents raise their kids, but that's their problem and the government is the last place I'd go to fix it (not to mention the last thing I'd want bailing them out for their mess-ups).
Are we switching sides here? Removing the root lock-out systems is what we want;)
Most of these devices have a factory reset that at the very least wipes the user-installed stuff. On the Nook it *may* pull a fresh ROM image from somewhere - I honestly don't know for sure. My point here is that botching an attempt to root the device can leave it in a state where you can't do that trivial factory recovery and would need to take more advanced steps like making a bootable SD card and digging up a factory ROM somewhere. The cost to support walking somebody who isn't technically savvy through recovering a device in some unknown state is why rooting the devices usually voids the warranty.
And well done to you for pointing it out so well. An excellent lesson that's not always given: Just because two points contradict each other doesn't mean one is wrong.
On the other hand, if your only means of stopping the invasion was the murder of, say, 100 completely innocent people (if for example the invaders tell you they will invade unless you do so, and they are too powerful to stop otherwise), that would not be justified (because of the axiom I originally stated).
This is one of those "hard decisions" that the disagreeing posts are talking about - and one I would never ever want to have to make. If the means is the murder of 100 innocents, and the ends is saving thousands or millions (again, of innocents), you can't use a blanket statement that it is unjustified. The situation determines the ethics, and either choice you make you're a monster.
As the thread is titled: It's a numbers game. If your inaction causes more harm than the intentional action causes - you've only really flipped the equation. The means was the harm caused by your inaction. The ends is you didn't have to make that call and suffer the responsibility.
It's a good debate, and one that we need to continually involve ourselves in so that when it comes time to make those calls we can at the very least say "we did the best we could." As another poster in this thread very insightfully noted: the sides of this debate are contradictory, but they're both right.
The problem we have is that most American parents are uncomfortable talking to their children about sex. They'd prefer to think their kids don't have it than face the fact that they are - so they sweep the entire discussion under the rug and assume their kids will get the knowledge of how to do it safely from somebody else. Their kids aren't as likely to use condoms because they don't want to get caught with them and get in trouble.
THAT'S the message kids are raised with: Sex is dirty and good people don't have it. If your parents catch you with condoms and birth control, you don't get praise for being responsible - you get grounded and banned from seeing anybody. You can't make STDs and teen pregnancies go away any more than you can stop people from spreading the cold and flu viruses. You *can* cut back the impact to a fraction of what it is now by touting the benefits of safe interactions with each other.
Well, if you were a celebrity and made a big hoopla about vaccines causing autism, then found out your kid didn't even have autism - wouldn't you try to downplay the press, too?
I'm not saying it's actually bricked. I'm simply saying that if a user tries to root their device and it goes wrong, quite a few users won't know what to do to fix it. It's not as simple as popping in your Recovery DVD and starting over.
Dog-Cow is rewriting history to conceal the truth...
The whole reason this is even up for discussion is that the Nook used to allow fairly easy rooting. Although not advertised, that was a *feature* that was a deciding factor for many people when purchasing a tablet (myself included). The story here isn't that the Nook disallows root access - it's that you could before, but now you can't and a lot of people are not pleased about it.
Barne's and Noble is absolutely within their rights to do this to their products (though whether it is allowed on a "push" upgrade is up for debate by smarter people than myself). That's not why we're talking about it, though. The reason we talk about it is so that B&N knows that we don't like that decision. When a company that builds something you like makes a change that you don't, you don't have to just roll over and accept it. There's nothing wrong with saying "hey, I don't like what you did there." It's all just more feedback they can take into their next updates.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you volunteering to pick up an M-16 and lead the charge?
Except that it's never about God. It's always about a charismatic individual's self interest. The only thing God does is get people to listen and then take the blame for when things don't go according to plan.
Yeah, I'm actually pretty sure we owe them a lot of eyes... In the greater balance of eyes for eyes, we are waaaay in debt.
You can't change the terms of a license that both parties have agreed to, but you can change it for future users (or future versions). I honestly haven't read TFA and barely skimmed TFS, so I don't know what's going on here - but generally speaking it is perfectly alright for somebody to change the conditions under which their products or services are provided.
'cause of course the Bible is the only source of ethics available these days...
Thanks for the insight... Hard to believe how many people are posting here bemoaning the fact that they don't meet the requirements - insisting that NASAs job description is too specific and should be broadened. Justifying how their lack of the right degree, ambition, or "large frame" wouldn't really hold them back. Fact is, there are thousands of people that meet those requirements and could do the job. We just aren't those people.
I don't think "Astronaut" is considered an entry level career. The people who apply don't just wake up one morning and decide "I'm sick of this job, I'm gonna apply to be an astronaut." They work their asses off and form their careers around it.
...fitting through a hatch might be of greater importance
Please... the vast majority of people meet the height requirements - too short or two tall falls out of design decisions for the hardware the people need to fit through. The rest is physical condition which the qualified candidates will put a lot of time into meeting. Sure there will be people who are otherwise qualified but too short or too tall or vision that can't be corrected through surgery and that is all unfortunate, but to claim you need genetically engineered people when the physical requirements *could* be met by the vast majority of the population (if they'd put down their cheetos and go for a run....) is simply ridiculous.
Education and experience is a different story... You know how just about every kid wanted to be an astronaut? Well the ones that were serious about it would meet these prerequisites. They'd have become military or commercial pilots, moved on as a test pilot, gotten an engineering background. Fact is, just about anybody *could* have been an astronaut had they really set their minds to it early on and stuck with it. It's hard work and very few people are willing to put forth the effort. If you don't meet those requirements... well you, like me, seem to have picked a different life for yourself.
Right, because "former astronaut" looks great on a resume *until* you list that you were one of those gosh darned NASA astronauts...
Well, I'm convinced.
Maybe it's not the automobile, but Los Angeles that is unsustainable...
The Roadster would compare with the 911... This guy you'd want to compare with their four door (Panamera or some other such silly name). In any case, it is surprisingly price competitive for the luxury sedan market.
People that buy Cadillac Escallades...
Ouch...
I'll give you that our society is what enables us to make our money and prosper - but that is a two way street. My work and productivity is what keeps this society going, and we can argue until we're blue in the face over who provides the bigger share of prosperity: the builder (me), or the enabler (gov't). Fact is, both contribute significantly and it is an extremely dangerous proposition to assume that the government is entitled to everything I produce simply because they allow me to produce it. Are you forgetting our recent historical experiences with societies in which the government and people are entitled to everything produced by society? Are you remembering the collapse of the USSR, what is happening in North Korea, or China's history up until recently?
There is a balance to be struck here for what is due in taxes. It's not none, but it certainly isn't all.
Lower taxes is great - I think we all agree with you there - but you can't lower taxes without the corresponding cuts to spending or you get *exactly* the problem our nation is facing now: lowered taxes and out of control debt. Congress can't manage to agree on what to cut spending on: Dems won't give up social programs, Repubs won't give up military spending. However, they can both agree on on lowering taxes for the next election cycle and letting Future America deal with the debt. *That* is how lowering taxes is a bad thing: Buying tons of stuff you can't afford, and then cutting back your income.
I'm talking about people being more open talking about sex, and you somehow assume that I mean the government should take over and force the matter? Some folks just want to see the same boogeyman behind every door...
I absolutely don't like how a lot of parents raise their kids, but that's their problem and the government is the last place I'd go to fix it (not to mention the last thing I'd want bailing them out for their mess-ups).
Are we switching sides here? Removing the root lock-out systems is what we want ;)
Most of these devices have a factory reset that at the very least wipes the user-installed stuff. On the Nook it *may* pull a fresh ROM image from somewhere - I honestly don't know for sure. My point here is that botching an attempt to root the device can leave it in a state where you can't do that trivial factory recovery and would need to take more advanced steps like making a bootable SD card and digging up a factory ROM somewhere. The cost to support walking somebody who isn't technically savvy through recovering a device in some unknown state is why rooting the devices usually voids the warranty.
And well done to you for pointing it out so well. An excellent lesson that's not always given: Just because two points contradict each other doesn't mean one is wrong.
On the other hand, if your only means of stopping the invasion was the murder of, say, 100 completely innocent people (if for example the invaders tell you they will invade unless you do so, and they are too powerful to stop otherwise), that would not be justified (because of the axiom I originally stated).
This is one of those "hard decisions" that the disagreeing posts are talking about - and one I would never ever want to have to make. If the means is the murder of 100 innocents, and the ends is saving thousands or millions (again, of innocents), you can't use a blanket statement that it is unjustified. The situation determines the ethics, and either choice you make you're a monster.
As the thread is titled: It's a numbers game. If your inaction causes more harm than the intentional action causes - you've only really flipped the equation. The means was the harm caused by your inaction. The ends is you didn't have to make that call and suffer the responsibility.
It's a good debate, and one that we need to continually involve ourselves in so that when it comes time to make those calls we can at the very least say "we did the best we could." As another poster in this thread very insightfully noted: the sides of this debate are contradictory, but they're both right.
The problem we have is that most American parents are uncomfortable talking to their children about sex. They'd prefer to think their kids don't have it than face the fact that they are - so they sweep the entire discussion under the rug and assume their kids will get the knowledge of how to do it safely from somebody else. Their kids aren't as likely to use condoms because they don't want to get caught with them and get in trouble.
THAT'S the message kids are raised with: Sex is dirty and good people don't have it. If your parents catch you with condoms and birth control, you don't get praise for being responsible - you get grounded and banned from seeing anybody. You can't make STDs and teen pregnancies go away any more than you can stop people from spreading the cold and flu viruses. You *can* cut back the impact to a fraction of what it is now by touting the benefits of safe interactions with each other.
Actually, if your half-hour highschool class preaches condom use rather than abstinence, it's going to make a whole hell of a lot of difference...
Well, if you were a celebrity and made a big hoopla about vaccines causing autism, then found out your kid didn't even have autism - wouldn't you try to downplay the press, too?
I'm not saying it's actually bricked. I'm simply saying that if a user tries to root their device and it goes wrong, quite a few users won't know what to do to fix it. It's not as simple as popping in your Recovery DVD and starting over.
Dog-Cow is rewriting history to conceal the truth...
The whole reason this is even up for discussion is that the Nook used to allow fairly easy rooting. Although not advertised, that was a *feature* that was a deciding factor for many people when purchasing a tablet (myself included). The story here isn't that the Nook disallows root access - it's that you could before, but now you can't and a lot of people are not pleased about it.
Barne's and Noble is absolutely within their rights to do this to their products (though whether it is allowed on a "push" upgrade is up for debate by smarter people than myself). That's not why we're talking about it, though. The reason we talk about it is so that B&N knows that we don't like that decision. When a company that builds something you like makes a change that you don't, you don't have to just roll over and accept it. There's nothing wrong with saying "hey, I don't like what you did there." It's all just more feedback they can take into their next updates.