Yes, science and religion are mutually exclusive. Always. If you are testing your ideas, then you are doing science. If you are not testing your ideas, then you are doing religion. It's pretty simple.
If religion tells you "why" how do you know that "why" is correct? Do you test it to find out whether it's correct? If so, then you're doing science. If not, you're just making shit up.
Science and religion are truly not orthogonal. The scientific method is applicable to all facts.
The only people that believe science and religion are fundamentally in conflict are religious fundamentalists and the militant positivists you find here on Slashdot. For *everyone else* (as the study shows) they coexist in harmony.
Which has nothing to do with their actual ability to coexist in harmony. People hold conflicting ideas in their head all the time. It's a rare person who is actually bothered by that.
The fact that most people don't see a conflict between science and religion has more to do with the human ability to hold two conflicting thoughts in their mind at once, and nothing to do with actual compatibility between the systems.
No it's not the same. It infringes fewer of your rights than traditional taxation does. Regular taxation deprives you of your money, your choice, and you don't necessarily get anything in return. The current mandate deprives you of your money, but not your choice, and you get health insurance out of it.
The set of rights infringed by the mandate is a subset of those infringed by taxation. If taxation is legal, than the mandate must be too.
Except the Constitution explicitly gives congress the power to collect taxes.
Quite true.
It is not at all clear that it has the power to "mandate that individuals enter into contracts with private insurance companies for the purchase of an expensive product from the time they are born until the time they die".
That's just a wordy way of saying taxation. Or a specific subset of taxation. Whether the government collects the tax and sends it to a private contractor, or allows the private contractor to collect the tax himself, is an irrelevant administrative detail.
The real rich part of all this is that we have Libertarians arguing that the government should have done something more restrictive of their rights than they actually did. From the Libertarian rhetoric going around, you'd think that they'd prefer single payer.
OK. What is that difference? I see none that matters. The only real difference is that the individual has more power when the government is not a middle man. That's a good thing, right?
Same thing by a different name. There is no effective difference between giving your money to the government, who gives it to a private contractor, and giving your money directly to the private contractor. In fact, the latter is even preferable as it will be more efficient for everyone.
Sure they can. Every time the government uses your tax dollars to hire a construction agency to build a road or building, they are forcing you to do business with a private entity.
It's clearly established that the US government can force you to pay a tax for services you never use. The health care law is less restrictive than that. It still forces you to pay, but you can choose the entity you pay. If the government can force you to buy something from a single source, then it certainly should be able to force you to buy something from one of many sources.
However, I have no reason to believe that the Supreme Court will come to the obvious and logical conclusion here. That's not their job. Their job is to provide legal cover for the corporate agenda.
The superbowl is watched by about 100 million Americans, or 1/3 of the population. That's the biggest game of the year, on free to watch over the air TV. About 50% of US homes have cable TV, so 1/3 * 1/2 = 1/6 = 16%.
Today, I can load linux on any machine, regardless of whether the manufacturer sucks. I won't be able to do this in the future. Pretending like that's not a problem is disingenuous.
You won't be paying extra for jailbroken motherboards, you might be paying extra for motherboards with vendor supported methods for disabling secure boot or inserting user keys.
What exactly is the difference from the owner's standpoint?You're still paying extra for something you've always expected to be able to do.
Anyone who wants to repurpose an OEM computer. Anyone who doesn't want to pay extra for jailbroken motherboards. Anyone who thinks people should own their property, instead of being beholden to the manufacturer.
You act like Western RPGs don't predate JRPGs. They do, and have been out innovating them for decades. It's only in the past 10 years that western RPGs have begun to suck as much as JRPGs.
The parent is not flamebait. There is a very serious lack of good deep western RPGs. If you haven't played games like Champion's of Krynn, then you don't know what you're missing.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, science and religion are mutually exclusive. Always. If you are testing your ideas, then you are doing science. If you are not testing your ideas, then you are doing religion. It's pretty simple.
If religion tells you "why" how do you know that "why" is correct? Do you test it to find out whether it's correct? If so, then you're doing science. If not, you're just making shit up.
Science and religion are truly not orthogonal. The scientific method is applicable to all facts.
Religion and science are orthogonal like fact and fiction are orthogonal.
The only people that believe science and religion are fundamentally in conflict are religious fundamentalists and the militant positivists you find here on Slashdot. For *everyone else* (as the study shows) they coexist in harmony.
Which has nothing to do with their actual ability to coexist in harmony. People hold conflicting ideas in their head all the time. It's a rare person who is actually bothered by that.
The fact that most people don't see a conflict between science and religion has more to do with the human ability to hold two conflicting thoughts in their mind at once, and nothing to do with actual compatibility between the systems.
You have choice - you elected people to spend your money.
That's a pretty poor excuse for choice, but I'll accept it for the sake of argument. As far as choice goes, this mandate is equivalent to a tax.
And you get more than you paid in in return from taxes.
Only some taxes. In other circumstances you get nothing from your taxes. In still other (qutie common) you are forced to fund your own oppression.
Furthermore, you don't have to pay taxes if you don't work.
And the unemployed will have vouchers to pay for their mandated health insurance. It's a slightly different implementation of the same thing.
More importantly - taxes go towards a public concern, they are spent by all of us collectively.
Universal health care is a public concern. One of the major roles of government is to solve the free rider problem.
This mandate is closer in relation to a citizenship requirement which is not legal. "You must purchase this product to be a US citizen."
Don't be ridiculous. No one is suggesting stripping citizenship from anyone.
Gnome is a desktop environment, of which a window manager is only a small part.
No it's not the same. It infringes fewer of your rights than traditional taxation does. Regular taxation deprives you of your money, your choice, and you don't necessarily get anything in return. The current mandate deprives you of your money, but not your choice, and you get health insurance out of it.
The set of rights infringed by the mandate is a subset of those infringed by taxation. If taxation is legal, than the mandate must be too.
It is a tax.
They certainly do. I dont' see how they have the slightest bearing on the current topic though.
Except the Constitution explicitly gives congress the power to collect taxes.
Quite true.
It is not at all clear that it has the power to "mandate that individuals enter into contracts with private insurance companies for the purchase of an expensive product from the time they are born until the time they die".
That's just a wordy way of saying taxation. Or a specific subset of taxation. Whether the government collects the tax and sends it to a private contractor, or allows the private contractor to collect the tax himself, is an irrelevant administrative detail.
The real rich part of all this is that we have Libertarians arguing that the government should have done something more restrictive of their rights than they actually did. From the Libertarian rhetoric going around, you'd think that they'd prefer single payer.
OK. What is that difference? I see none that matters. The only real difference is that the individual has more power when the government is not a middle man. That's a good thing, right?
Same thing by a different name. There is no effective difference between giving your money to the government, who gives it to a private contractor, and giving your money directly to the private contractor. In fact, the latter is even preferable as it will be more efficient for everyone.
I always considered /. to be the union of those two sets, not the intersection.
By your logic it's illegal for the government to use private contractors. This is no different, except that you get to choose the private contractor.
Guns, tanks, cruise missiles, aircraft carriers. I don't use any of those, and yet I am required to pay for them.
Sure they can. Every time the government uses your tax dollars to hire a construction agency to build a road or building, they are forcing you to do business with a private entity.
It's clearly established that the US government can force you to pay a tax for services you never use. The health care law is less restrictive than that. It still forces you to pay, but you can choose the entity you pay. If the government can force you to buy something from a single source, then it certainly should be able to force you to buy something from one of many sources.
However, I have no reason to believe that the Supreme Court will come to the obvious and logical conclusion here. That's not their job. Their job is to provide legal cover for the corporate agenda.
The superbowl is watched by about 100 million Americans, or 1/3 of the population. That's the biggest game of the year, on free to watch over the air TV. About 50% of US homes have cable TV, so 1/3 * 1/2 = 1/6 = 16%.
He's not that far off.
if your OEM doesn't suck.
Today, I can load linux on any machine, regardless of whether the manufacturer sucks. I won't be able to do this in the future. Pretending like that's not a problem is disingenuous.
You won't be paying extra for jailbroken motherboards, you might be paying extra for motherboards with vendor supported methods for disabling secure boot or inserting user keys.
What exactly is the difference from the owner's standpoint?You're still paying extra for something you've always expected to be able to do.
Anyone who wants to repurpose an OEM computer. Anyone who doesn't want to pay extra for jailbroken motherboards. Anyone who thinks people should own their property, instead of being beholden to the manufacturer.
That's who.
You act like Western RPGs don't predate JRPGs. They do, and have been out innovating them for decades. It's only in the past 10 years that western RPGs have begun to suck as much as JRPGs.
Play more classic western RPGs. You will not win an SSI Gold Box RPG by button mashing.
I swear, it's like you people have no culture at all.
The parent is not flamebait. There is a very serious lack of good deep western RPGs. If you haven't played games like Champion's of Krynn, then you don't know what you're missing.