Dawkins has become some sort of atheist pope. Lots of ritual and tradition for nothing in the religion of atheism.
Oh really? What exact rituals are you describing? I went to an atheist conference this summer, I don't remember hearing Dawkins mentioned once. You're just making this up, admit it.
It might suprise you to know that not all atheists read Dawkins. We don't need people like Dawkins to tell us what to think. It's all pretty obvious if you read about science and use your own brain. If you just read and parrot Dawkins you're not any better than a Christian parroting the bible.
I did read Bertrand Russel's "Why I am not a Christian", but that's because Russel is awesome. And I read Dennett's "Consciousness Explained" but that's not about atheism. It's entirely possible to be a modern atheist without touching the "New Atheism" literature.
D3 Dopamine receptors - mediate the reinforcing effects of pleasure Mu Opioid receptors - mediate pain and the effects of morphine, etc. A1 & A2 Adenosine receptors - mediate the effects of caffeine CB1 Endocannabinoid receptors - mediate the effects of THC 5-HT2a Serotonin receptors - mediate the effect of LSD NK1r Neurokinin receptor - mediates pain and the effect of capsaicin. H1 Histamine receptor - mediates cellular permeability (causing leaky noses) and the effects of benadryl, zyrtec, etc H2 Histamine receptor - mediates release of gastric acid and the effects of zantac, etc.
These things are everywhere and modulate just about everything.
We've already got Las Vegas if we want to gamble, I'm looking for a little more predictability out of Wall Street, instead we are getting less and less.
Vegas is more predictable than Wall Street and always has been. In Vegas, they can tell you the odds for every game. In Wall Street, they're careful to warn you that past performance is no guarantee of future performance. In other words, if there was a 1/36 chance of getting snake eyes yesterday, there's no guarantee that it will it will be the same today.
Oh, and in either case, no matter what happens the house wins.
Sure, from your browser to Google's server it's encrypted. What about from Google's MTA to the next MTA? Or from that MTA to the one after that? What if the recipient uses plain old POP3 to access the email you sent through GMail using HTTPS?
If your message isn't encrypted end to end, it may as well not be encrypted at all.
Why not? Many areas are already under heavy water stress. There are but three ways I can see the future deal with this: 1. Revolutionary new technology. Perhaps a big increase in the use of nuclear energy for desalination. 2. Free-market control of demand: You can use all the water you want, but you pay by the litre. Your usage is limited by what you can afford. May work, may just result in the low-income going unwashed because they can't afford more than drinking water. Depends how the market sets the price. 3. Regulatory control of demand. The water quota.
You assume wifi can only be used for ill. Leaving your wifi open is on the whole a public service. You will help more people than will be harmed by bad behavior. You shouldn't even get a ticket, you should get an award for leaving your wifi open.
There are 13 standard Loci with something like 10 Alleles or more at each marker. So that is something like the chance of a "random" match as one in 10^-12.
Only if you operate on the assumption that none of those loci are correlated with each other.
This is one of the most artful academic smackdowns I've read:
But the issue is controversial and his opinions and standing are questioned by Dorothy Bishop, professor of developmental neuropsychology at Oxford University who says that although this is an important topic, Sigman's paper is not "an impartial expert review of evidence for effects on health and child development". "Aric Sigman does not appear to have any academic or clinical position, or to have done any original research on this topic," she said. "His comments about impact of screen time on brain development and empathy seem speculative in my opinion, and the arguments that he makes could equally well be used to conclude that children should not read books."
Read this as "Clinicians have no idea how to do meta-analysis. He's making this shit up".
In other words, he says that Iraq has not complied with the terms of 1441
Surely he didn't. But how does it follow that the appropriate response is a unilateral military occupation? There was still no imminent threat from Iraq, nor was there any legitimate reason to believe there was.
Right, and with China, Russia, and France having lucrative oil contracts in Iraq under the OFF program, of course they weren't eager to disrupt the flow of those funds
And? So? It's the UN's choice whether to enforce the UN's resolutions. You can't say on one hand "Iraq has to abide by UN resolutions" and on the other hand say "the UN doesn't matter". If the UN isn't a legitimate governing body, come up with some non UN based justifications for the war. If the UN is a legitimate governing body, then let them govern. You can't have it both ways.
Unless that's your aim, you should probably stop it, and go read up on the actual facts surrounding the case
What facts are in dispute? You've presented none. I got my news from the same place everyone else did in 2003, cable news.
Hans Blix found nothing because there was nothing to find. If Bush & Co wanted proof, they could have given Blix the few months he asked for. Besides, if you're going to use flaunting UN agreements as a justification for war, you should probably let the guy from the UN do his fucking job first.
To answer your question though, how long should we put up with a country flaunting UN resolutions before we wage war with them? For as long as it takes for the UN to agree to take action. If you want to use the UN as an excuse, you have to take it through UN channels. Whether Iraq follows UN agreements is not our business, it's the Security Council's business. If you're going to proceed unilaterally, it's dishonest to use the UN as justification for your aggression.
And there's no mythology that's been built up. All of this was perfectly clear to anyone who paid attention in 2003.
There doesn't have to be an actual risk to children. You just have to declare that you're doing something to protect children, and accompany it with a suitably jingoistic propaganda campaign. This is how "The Land of The Free"(TM), has managed over 75 years of cannabis prohibition, despite it being one of the safest drugs on Earth. A war on wifi would be no more absurd or unjust.
The AC said it would be ruled to only apply to commercial sales. That is why it was proposed that the 99% would not care.
And just where do you think the 99% shop? Non commercial operations? Does that mean non-profit organizations will be able to fund themselves through this kind of copyright arbitrage? Somehow, I doubt it.
Even at the time, a clear headed look at the intelligence told you everything you needed to know. The people who were actually in Iraq, e.g., Hans Blix found no evidence of any ongoing WMD project. The only so called evidence came from Cheney's personal, in house, Office of Special plans, which was always nothing more than a markting agency for the war.
It was clear as day in 2003, and it's clear as day now. The entire argument for the war in Iraq was fraudulent.
The top three intel agencies told their leaders what they wanted to hear. They were clever enough to know that if they didn't they would be circumvented or ignored. If the Bush administration had honestly wanted to determine if there were WMDs, they would have given Hans Blix a few months to do his job. There was no urgency except in the fevered imaginations of neocons.
No, nobody needed to provide those services. We had no need to invade iraq, and without Dick Cheney's advocacy we would not have. No war, no need for services.
As for who's fault it is we went to war in Iraq? I'd lay that blame squarely at the feet of Sadam Husein. For years he thumbed his nose at the UN
For years and years, yes. So where was the imminent threat? There was none, there was only an imminent opportunity for Cheney's cronies to make money.
If we had not invaded Iraq, Saddam Hussein would still be in power, still thumbing his nose, but doing nothing to actually harm Americans. Instead, we have 2 trillion dollars to pay off (more than 9/11 cost our economy), 4800 dead Americans (more than died in 9/11), and hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis. Dick Cheney is a war criminal.
Justice Thomas has stated he does not feel that he is listening when he is thinking about what to say, so he does not ask questions. It is flame bait to claim that he is sleeping
Really? One of the finest legal minds in the country can't think on his feet? When I listen I come up with questions automatically. The very act of processing the information coming in produces questions. I'd go as far as to say that if you don't have questions after a talk, whether it's an argument, a speech, or a lecture, you weren't really listening.
Slashdot Mirror
Dawkins has become some sort of atheist pope. Lots of ritual and tradition for nothing in the religion of atheism.
Oh really? What exact rituals are you describing? I went to an atheist conference this summer, I don't remember hearing Dawkins mentioned once. You're just making this up, admit it.
It might suprise you to know that not all atheists read Dawkins. We don't need people like Dawkins to tell us what to think. It's all pretty obvious if you read about science and use your own brain. If you just read and parrot Dawkins you're not any better than a Christian parroting the bible.
I did read Bertrand Russel's "Why I am not a Christian", but that's because Russel is awesome. And I read Dennett's "Consciousness Explained" but that's not about atheism. It's entirely possible to be a modern atheist without touching the "New Atheism" literature.
Some GPCRs you may know and love include:
D3 Dopamine receptors - mediate the reinforcing effects of pleasure
Mu Opioid receptors - mediate pain and the effects of morphine, etc.
A1 & A2 Adenosine receptors - mediate the effects of caffeine
CB1 Endocannabinoid receptors - mediate the effects of THC
5-HT2a Serotonin receptors - mediate the effect of LSD
NK1r Neurokinin receptor - mediates pain and the effect of capsaicin.
H1 Histamine receptor - mediates cellular permeability (causing leaky noses) and the effects of benadryl, zyrtec, etc
H2 Histamine receptor - mediates release of gastric acid and the effects of zantac, etc.
These things are everywhere and modulate just about everything.
We've already got Las Vegas if we want to gamble, I'm looking for a little more predictability out of Wall Street, instead we are getting less and less.
Vegas is more predictable than Wall Street and always has been. In Vegas, they can tell you the odds for every game. In Wall Street, they're careful to warn you that past performance is no guarantee of future performance. In other words, if there was a 1/36 chance of getting snake eyes yesterday, there's no guarantee that it will it will be the same today.
Oh, and in either case, no matter what happens the house wins.
Sure, from your browser to Google's server it's encrypted. What about from Google's MTA to the next MTA? Or from that MTA to the one after that? What if the recipient uses plain old POP3 to access the email you sent through GMail using HTTPS?
If your message isn't encrypted end to end, it may as well not be encrypted at all.
4. Massive attrition through war for resources.
And suddenly you remember this masturbatory futuristic article from slashdot and chuckle heartily.
Actually, that sounds like the worst part of the entire experience.
Order that institutionalizes injustice isn't any better than chaotic injustice.
This is what key signatures are for.
3) The legal system is not about justice but about control.
They don't care if innocents are railroaded as long as the rich and powerful get what they want.
You assume wifi can only be used for ill. Leaving your wifi open is on the whole a public service. You will help more people than will be harmed by bad behavior. You shouldn't even get a ticket, you should get an award for leaving your wifi open.
There are 13 standard Loci with something like 10 Alleles or more at each marker. So that is something like the chance of a "random" match as one in 10^-12.
Only if you operate on the assumption that none of those loci are correlated with each other.
This is one of the most artful academic smackdowns I've read:
Read this as "Clinicians have no idea how to do meta-analysis. He's making this shit up".
In other words, he says that Iraq has not complied with the terms of 1441
Surely he didn't. But how does it follow that the appropriate response is a unilateral military occupation? There was still no imminent threat from Iraq, nor was there any legitimate reason to believe there was.
Right, and with China, Russia, and France having lucrative oil contracts in Iraq under the OFF program, of course they weren't eager to disrupt the flow of those funds
And? So? It's the UN's choice whether to enforce the UN's resolutions. You can't say on one hand "Iraq has to abide by UN resolutions" and on the other hand say "the UN doesn't matter". If the UN isn't a legitimate governing body, come up with some non UN based justifications for the war. If the UN is a legitimate governing body, then let them govern. You can't have it both ways.
Unless that's your aim, you should probably stop it, and go read up on the actual facts surrounding the case
What facts are in dispute? You've presented none. I got my news from the same place everyone else did in 2003, cable news.
Hans Blix found nothing because there was nothing to find. If Bush & Co wanted proof, they could have given Blix the few months he asked for. Besides, if you're going to use flaunting UN agreements as a justification for war, you should probably let the guy from the UN do his fucking job first.
To answer your question though, how long should we put up with a country flaunting UN resolutions before we wage war with them? For as long as it takes for the UN to agree to take action. If you want to use the UN as an excuse, you have to take it through UN channels. Whether Iraq follows UN agreements is not our business, it's the Security Council's business. If you're going to proceed unilaterally, it's dishonest to use the UN as justification for your aggression.
And there's no mythology that's been built up. All of this was perfectly clear to anyone who paid attention in 2003.
I see you've made your choice. Copyright is also incompatible with free speech. I'd suppose you'd give that up just as easily too.
there's little you can do in an office that doesn't demand a PC.
Anything you can do in an office with a PC, you can do with a VM with a thin client.
There doesn't have to be an actual risk to children. You just have to declare that you're doing something to protect children, and accompany it with a suitably jingoistic propaganda campaign. This is how "The Land of The Free"(TM), has managed over 75 years of cannabis prohibition, despite it being one of the safest drugs on Earth. A war on wifi would be no more absurd or unjust.
The AC said it would be ruled to only apply to commercial sales. That is why it was proposed that the 99% would not care.
And just where do you think the 99% shop? Non commercial operations? Does that mean non-profit organizations will be able to fund themselves through this kind of copyright arbitrage? Somehow, I doubt it.
Even at the time, a clear headed look at the intelligence told you everything you needed to know. The people who were actually in Iraq, e.g., Hans Blix found no evidence of any ongoing WMD project. The only so called evidence came from Cheney's personal, in house, Office of Special plans, which was always nothing more than a markting agency for the war.
It was clear as day in 2003, and it's clear as day now. The entire argument for the war in Iraq was fraudulent.
The top three intel agencies told their leaders what they wanted to hear. They were clever enough to know that if they didn't they would be circumvented or ignored. If the Bush administration had honestly wanted to determine if there were WMDs, they would have given Hans Blix a few months to do his job. There was no urgency except in the fevered imaginations of neocons.
Somebody needed to provide those services
No, nobody needed to provide those services. We had no need to invade iraq, and without Dick Cheney's advocacy we would not have. No war, no need for services.
As for who's fault it is we went to war in Iraq? I'd lay that blame squarely at the feet of Sadam Husein. For years he thumbed his nose at the UN
For years and years, yes. So where was the imminent threat? There was none, there was only an imminent opportunity for Cheney's cronies to make money.
If we had not invaded Iraq, Saddam Hussein would still be in power, still thumbing his nose, but doing nothing to actually harm Americans. Instead, we have 2 trillion dollars to pay off (more than 9/11 cost our economy), 4800 dead Americans (more than died in 9/11), and hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis. Dick Cheney is a war criminal.
None of us thought of exploiting it by arbitrage, because we knew it was "wrong".
There is absolutely nothing wrong about this. What's wrong are the copyright restrictions.
It's not complicated at all. Copyright law is incompatible with property rights. Pick which one you want.
Justice Thomas has stated he does not feel that he is listening when he is thinking about what to say, so he does not ask questions. It is flame bait to claim that he is sleeping
Really? One of the finest legal minds in the country can't think on his feet? When I listen I come up with questions automatically. The very act of processing the information coming in produces questions. I'd go as far as to say that if you don't have questions after a talk, whether it's an argument, a speech, or a lecture, you weren't really listening.