They actually teach this in the intro engineering classes. Ironically enough with a powerpoint presentation about the subject of make pp presentations. Unfortunately very few of the professors are required to learn this skill, often with the poor practices that you mention or worse.
And of course there is no way that something as simple as occupying a multi-ethnic country can so so complex as to not be understood by a 3rd grader. If something seems simple you most likely clearly don't understand it. I mean the space shuttle is just a shuttle that goes in space right? What is so complex that NASA needs billions to build one. I could buy a used school bus strap a rocket to it and be good to go.
My reply was supposed to be to bigbird. But that argument is one I like to use against prostitution prohibitionists. By their logic we shouldn't have to work either right? I would still like to know who the victims are in his mind. His argument doesn't have much substance.
I have to print out homework for my college classes. I don't print too much, although today was an exception. Had to write to someone in gov't who I couldn't find an email for. Actually had to lookup on line how to address an envelope.
feeling like a karma whore right now so I'll compare this to a puppy mill launching a campaign encouraging people to run over their neighbors dogs increasing the demand for puppies./ducks
Playing devil's advocate, pun intended, here the church is big on the idea of forgiveness. The public at large is not. If the church wants to promote this level of forgiveness they need to control leaks of information out of the church so that repentant abusers don't have the stigma attached to them as punishment as well since god has forgiven them. Ever worried about how the Internet never forgets? How many here have walked into a interview and though oh god I hope they haven't see my myspace page from 3 yrs ago. Although that is mostly irrelevant because they hid these cases to protect the integrity of the church and not repentant abusers but repeat ones. If I completely misunderstand the facts of Christianity it is because I was raised Catholic and never really needed to know any of it anyways just go to church twice a year and give a donation.
Well you can't ban stupid, unless you want to keep them from voting which has had a bad history in this country or want to abort stupid kids good luck. Fortunately stupid people are not too bad for democracy. When they are totally uninformed law of large numbers kicks in and they effectively cancel each other out if voting completely randomly. The true problem is the benefit of voting while important is small. The gain you get from voting for a stupid policy that makes you feel good is much less than the gain from voting for the right policy which is often the more complex and difficult one is very small. Say you vote against marijuana. You can feel morally superior while voting at the same time you know your vote was very likely not the deciding vote so any consequences, weather you admit they exist or not, the blame and responsibility is shared among everyone else who voted with you. What should really happen is that because of this gov't should decrease so that people with things to directly loose make decisions about their behavior.
who is the victim. If your argument is that since the woman is doing it for the money she really doesn't want to do it. Yes that is a good argument, except I would not go to work if I wasn't paid so work should be illegal.
Well for democracy too much information can be bad. The ignorant and incapable will be overwhelmed and loose interest and sabotage the election when they vote for the taller candidate. Not that controlling information would be better but there are trade offs.
The taxation argument has always bugged me and your post seemed like a good place to voice that opinion. As I pointed out those other reason should be why we legalize gambling or similar crimes. Mentioning taxation should be avoided and the fact that the law is not based on reason should be the only way to argue the point because taxation arguments even if secondary invite the gov't to over tax us to return a privilege they stole from us. I agree with the rest of your post and it was by no means a personal attack against you or your whole argument just part of the argument I had a problem with.
The law is not a deterrent because the law makes no sense in the "victim-less" crimes you noted. That is why the law should not exist, not because we can tax it. That is what should be focused on. As you pointed out most people would not murder and the ones who do find that the benefit to them of the murder outweighs their moral objection unless an additional cost is put in place. This somewhat contradicts my point that if there needs to be artificial costs to ban something murder should be legal. What I wanted to point out with the murder case was that there clearly is a victim and the murderer only feels the 'cost' of his action if the cost is imposed on him by the law. Where is the cost on the victim of gambling, if the person can't control himself thats his problem. If that same person steals to pay for his 'addiction' there are laws to charge him with so the gambler is already appropriately charged. With your argument "If you can't stop people from doing something, you might as well allow it instead and take a slice of the pie." Again you can't stop murders from happening so why not tax it?
It was mentioned in another post here. There are laws against stealing and "white collar crime driven by gambling" why does gambling need to be covered twice. If it is only some people that have problems then that sounds like their problem and if you or I can gamble responsibly then why can't we if a few can't do it responsibly. Anyways treating them like kids and not letting them learn the consequences of their actions is all the more damaging to them.
congratulations you just figured out the basic premise of being the house in gambling. All the games are already set so that the house has the advantage. In different games it is a different margin but in the end the house plays many more games against many more people so that the law of large numbers sets in and they will always win, by how much will vary slightly but in the end they win. You didn't think Vegas paid for all of its showgirls by paying gamblers to win money did you? Also you don't need everyone to loose all the time to make money, you just need MOST people to lose more than they win. The few winners as you note are spread around so that people have the illusion that they might win big which they can but not as likely as the house is to win big. This is why gambling should be an entertainment not a job and anyone who thinks other wise just doesn't get it, well in some cases they do get it because if you are not playing against the house and in stead other players you just have to be smarter than they are. Some of the games have small player advantages like blakjack if played properly the house just throws you out if you consistently win too much.
I do wish people would stop using the taxation argument about legalizing it. If the only reason to legalize an activity is to tax it then it really shouldn't be legal anyways. Take for example murder, lets legalize it and tax it right? No. There are good reasons it is illegal. In the case of gambling there is no good reason for it to be illegal unless you're a pompous religious prick out to save everyones soul, that's the reason enough it should be legal and arguing about the taxation is just opening yourself to abuse by the gov't. Look at alcohol, the gov't taxes the hell out of it because it was illegal and they did us the favor of legalizing it for the taxes. They took something from us that they had no grounds to and then charged us to get it back. It will be the same with this or marijuana. We will all be so glad that the gov't has given us back a privilege they stole from us that we will accept their higher taxation.
actually that is the problem. the list is just a list of names and nothing else, not even birthdays. if your name is similar to anyones on the list, feel real sorry for Joe smith, you get stopped every time without fail. only exception is if you are on a round trip you may not get stopped on the return flight but even if they do flag you for your return flight you will get stopped at the next flight. your name doesn't even have to match exactly, if it sounds the same you get stopped.
well potential customers could choose not to fly on that airline if it has horrible performance. in the end someone has to be paying attention. when the govt makes it its job to pay attention for us we assume that they are doing a better job than we would.
problem is how do you separate church and state if the church represents god and His ways and will for every thing on this earth from government which is a subset of everything on earth. how can the faithful allow the unfaithful to go along with their life knowing it will lead them to hell and eternal punishment. all faiths have had to prostrate like this, by allowing tolerance they aren't seen as giant pricks stuck on their view of how the world should be. they have to do this because people want a faith that tells them there is a reason for being and that they are not just giant pain collecting machines heading towards oblivion. it is a comfort thing not truly a universal truth thing. if you question this ask someone who is faithful about evolution, if their defense is "well would like to have evolved from monkey I sure wouldn't" kindly remind them that the universe does not care what they 'want' and that it was doing alright on its own for many years before they came along. life ends and there is no users manual you have to figure it out like the rest of us.
wait it is illegal to surf porn at work? why didn't anyone tell me? get me from my porn when news that matters shows up not just a few cases of people not doing their job. the real problem is this half regulation deal we got going. now any company that is partially regulated thinks that because they are regulated and none of the regulators are saying anything then they must be doing a good job and will keep with their crap.
Entertainment wants? How could entertainment possibly want anything. "I" want entertainment to be free and I want a lot of other things for free but none of them want or yearn to free themselves from the bondage of cost.
Slashdot Mirror
They actually teach this in the intro engineering classes. Ironically enough with a powerpoint presentation about the subject of make pp presentations. Unfortunately very few of the professors are required to learn this skill, often with the poor practices that you mention or worse.
And of course there is no way that something as simple as occupying a multi-ethnic country can so so complex as to not be understood by a 3rd grader. If something seems simple you most likely clearly don't understand it. I mean the space shuttle is just a shuttle that goes in space right? What is so complex that NASA needs billions to build one. I could buy a used school bus strap a rocket to it and be good to go.
My reply was supposed to be to bigbird. But that argument is one I like to use against prostitution prohibitionists. By their logic we shouldn't have to work either right? I would still like to know who the victims are in his mind. His argument doesn't have much substance.
I have to print out homework for my college classes. I don't print too much, although today was an exception. Had to write to someone in gov't who I couldn't find an email for. Actually had to lookup on line how to address an envelope.
feeling like a karma whore right now so I'll compare this to a puppy mill launching a campaign encouraging people to run over their neighbors dogs increasing the demand for puppies. /ducks
Has anyone thought of a RICO charge against the church? I mean they organized to conceal their criminal acts.
Playing devil's advocate, pun intended, here the church is big on the idea of forgiveness. The public at large is not. If the church wants to promote this level of forgiveness they need to control leaks of information out of the church so that repentant abusers don't have the stigma attached to them as punishment as well since god has forgiven them. Ever worried about how the Internet never forgets? How many here have walked into a interview and though oh god I hope they haven't see my myspace page from 3 yrs ago. Although that is mostly irrelevant because they hid these cases to protect the integrity of the church and not repentant abusers but repeat ones. If I completely misunderstand the facts of Christianity it is because I was raised Catholic and never really needed to know any of it anyways just go to church twice a year and give a donation.
Well you can't ban stupid, unless you want to keep them from voting which has had a bad history in this country or want to abort stupid kids good luck. Fortunately stupid people are not too bad for democracy. When they are totally uninformed law of large numbers kicks in and they effectively cancel each other out if voting completely randomly. The true problem is the benefit of voting while important is small. The gain you get from voting for a stupid policy that makes you feel good is much less than the gain from voting for the right policy which is often the more complex and difficult one is very small. Say you vote against marijuana. You can feel morally superior while voting at the same time you know your vote was very likely not the deciding vote so any consequences, weather you admit they exist or not, the blame and responsibility is shared among everyone else who voted with you. What should really happen is that because of this gov't should decrease so that people with things to directly loose make decisions about their behavior.
who is the victim. If your argument is that since the woman is doing it for the money she really doesn't want to do it. Yes that is a good argument, except I would not go to work if I wasn't paid so work should be illegal.
Well for democracy too much information can be bad. The ignorant and incapable will be overwhelmed and loose interest and sabotage the election when they vote for the taller candidate. Not that controlling information would be better but there are trade offs.
The taxation argument has always bugged me and your post seemed like a good place to voice that opinion. As I pointed out those other reason should be why we legalize gambling or similar crimes. Mentioning taxation should be avoided and the fact that the law is not based on reason should be the only way to argue the point because taxation arguments even if secondary invite the gov't to over tax us to return a privilege they stole from us. I agree with the rest of your post and it was by no means a personal attack against you or your whole argument just part of the argument I had a problem with.
The law is not a deterrent because the law makes no sense in the "victim-less" crimes you noted. That is why the law should not exist, not because we can tax it. That is what should be focused on. As you pointed out most people would not murder and the ones who do find that the benefit to them of the murder outweighs their moral objection unless an additional cost is put in place. This somewhat contradicts my point that if there needs to be artificial costs to ban something murder should be legal. What I wanted to point out with the murder case was that there clearly is a victim and the murderer only feels the 'cost' of his action if the cost is imposed on him by the law. Where is the cost on the victim of gambling, if the person can't control himself thats his problem. If that same person steals to pay for his 'addiction' there are laws to charge him with so the gambler is already appropriately charged. With your argument "If you can't stop people from doing something, you might as well allow it instead and take a slice of the pie." Again you can't stop murders from happening so why not tax it?
the grounds are "because we said we could."
But taxed even more after.
It was mentioned in another post here. There are laws against stealing and "white collar crime driven by gambling" why does gambling need to be covered twice. If it is only some people that have problems then that sounds like their problem and if you or I can gamble responsibly then why can't we if a few can't do it responsibly. Anyways treating them like kids and not letting them learn the consequences of their actions is all the more damaging to them.
congratulations you just figured out the basic premise of being the house in gambling. All the games are already set so that the house has the advantage. In different games it is a different margin but in the end the house plays many more games against many more people so that the law of large numbers sets in and they will always win, by how much will vary slightly but in the end they win. You didn't think Vegas paid for all of its showgirls by paying gamblers to win money did you? Also you don't need everyone to loose all the time to make money, you just need MOST people to lose more than they win. The few winners as you note are spread around so that people have the illusion that they might win big which they can but not as likely as the house is to win big. This is why gambling should be an entertainment not a job and anyone who thinks other wise just doesn't get it, well in some cases they do get it because if you are not playing against the house and in stead other players you just have to be smarter than they are. Some of the games have small player advantages like blakjack if played properly the house just throws you out if you consistently win too much.
I do wish people would stop using the taxation argument about legalizing it. If the only reason to legalize an activity is to tax it then it really shouldn't be legal anyways. Take for example murder, lets legalize it and tax it right? No. There are good reasons it is illegal. In the case of gambling there is no good reason for it to be illegal unless you're a pompous religious prick out to save everyones soul, that's the reason enough it should be legal and arguing about the taxation is just opening yourself to abuse by the gov't. Look at alcohol, the gov't taxes the hell out of it because it was illegal and they did us the favor of legalizing it for the taxes. They took something from us that they had no grounds to and then charged us to get it back. It will be the same with this or marijuana. We will all be so glad that the gov't has given us back a privilege they stole from us that we will accept their higher taxation.
actually that is the problem. the list is just a list of names and nothing else, not even birthdays. if your name is similar to anyones on the list, feel real sorry for Joe smith, you get stopped every time without fail. only exception is if you are on a round trip you may not get stopped on the return flight but even if they do flag you for your return flight you will get stopped at the next flight. your name doesn't even have to match exactly, if it sounds the same you get stopped.
well potential customers could choose not to fly on that airline if it has horrible performance. in the end someone has to be paying attention. when the govt makes it its job to pay attention for us we assume that they are doing a better job than we would.
here is a partial list. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_fly_list#False_positives_and_other_controversial_cases note that senator Kennedy once was stopped because the name T Kennedy was on the list as an alias and it took him 3 weeks to have his name removed. by the way it was estimated that 7,000 Americans match that 'name'
problem is how do you separate church and state if the church represents god and His ways and will for every thing on this earth from government which is a subset of everything on earth. how can the faithful allow the unfaithful to go along with their life knowing it will lead them to hell and eternal punishment. all faiths have had to prostrate like this, by allowing tolerance they aren't seen as giant pricks stuck on their view of how the world should be. they have to do this because people want a faith that tells them there is a reason for being and that they are not just giant pain collecting machines heading towards oblivion. it is a comfort thing not truly a universal truth thing. if you question this ask someone who is faithful about evolution, if their defense is "well would like to have evolved from monkey I sure wouldn't" kindly remind them that the universe does not care what they 'want' and that it was doing alright on its own for many years before they came along. life ends and there is no users manual you have to figure it out like the rest of us.
wait it is illegal to surf porn at work? why didn't anyone tell me? get me from my porn when news that matters shows up not just a few cases of people not doing their job. the real problem is this half regulation deal we got going. now any company that is partially regulated thinks that because they are regulated and none of the regulators are saying anything then they must be doing a good job and will keep with their crap.
don't forget the comments about correlation doesn't mean causation followed by feeble attempts to explain statistics.
narrow so far as they have no concern for the movie industries bottom line. Anything taken to the extreme is unlikely to be good.
Entertainment wants? How could entertainment possibly want anything. "I" want entertainment to be free and I want a lot of other things for free but none of them want or yearn to free themselves from the bondage of cost.