Holy shit, is this Righthaven storyline the most satisfying nerd storyline of the last half-century or what? This is even better than SCO! I just can't believe that justice has rained down so hard in this case.
Oh, well this wasn't private property, it was common property owned by a publicly regulated organization of homeowners. That's why you don't have to put a handicap spot in your driveway in front of your house, but an organization of homeowners large enough to be publicly regulated and have a communal parking lot does. So, yeah, the property wasn't private. It also wasn't "taken" in a legal sense, I think. Unlike you, I am not a lawyer at all.
How would a US business do if it got out that they wouldn't serve black people?
I imagine it would look similar to what Augusta National does in not accepting female members: they would be just fine. A company that didn't accept black people would... be just fine. Many companies and organizations do that to different levels. They might lose a few customers, and they might gain some more.
Do we "need" such a law? That's a political question. I think yes; it's an ongoing policy and we vote on it when we elect new representatives.
So, again, the question is, do we prefer a world where it's actually against the law to discriminate on those bases? or do we prefer a world where the government is limited from the power to have that sort of law? Maybe we want both things, but it really is a real choice between them and they are mutually exclusive. It's perfectly fair to prefer the limited government, but it's important to honestly account
Tiny government can't rain down wrath. Tiny government can be downed in a bathtub -- have you ever heard that metaphor? Any corporation could easily overpower a tiny government, and that's what the libertarians want, which is perfectly fair political ideology.
"How"? You mean, by issuing a warrant for his arrest, arresting him, and processing him the way all other criminals are processed? How else would they do it?
If you paint a pair of lines and a handicapped symbol in your driveway, that doesn't make it a handicapped spot under the law. If you open your house as a business for the public, then that does. The details are in the law.
That sort of misses the point, which is that libertarians want to eliminate laws which apply to equal treatment. And that's fair, so long as they are up-front and honest about it:
"Yes, we want to allow employers to refuse to hire black people. We think that racism is a smaller problem than government intrusion."
Actually, no, I've never seen that. I'm sure it happens sometimes, somewhere, but the only way I've seen handicapped spaces used is by people who get out and walk to the store with no apparent problem; or people who sit there and idle while another able-bodied person gets out and goes into the store. I see those semi-regularly. But the thing I usually see handicapped spaces used for is... nothing, like they're empty, about 98% of the time I see them.
I am fully in support of the concept of handicapped spaces, but our implementation is very, very bad. I suggest: * the death penalty for doctors who give handicapped stickers to people who don't need them * the death penalty for people who use handicapped stickers when they don't need them * reducing handicapped spaces by 80%, dropping most parking lots down to one or at most two spaces
The post by AC used that phrase. I responded to that, and you responded to me. Forgive the misattribution. Instead of accusing you of preposterously saying that a drop in the bucket of something couldn't possibly affect the thing, I should have accused you of preposterously saying that the ricin metaphor was inaptly applied to AGW. It was a good metaphor to refute the suggestion that a drop in the bucket of a substance couldn't affect the bucket. I disagree that it is a bad metaphor: it is a good metaphor which does 'hold water' in the proverbial 'bucket'. If you demand a metaphor using a substance found naturally in the body, which in greater abundance causes serious problems, you can choose any bodily substance. Formaldehyde comes to mind as a substance made naturally by bodily functions, but which in larger amounts causes serious harm. The metaphor is the same and sufficient for the point.
I don't have time or inclination to look it up, but the wiki you sent says "The [global cooling] hypothesis had mixed support in the scientific community". That's the distinction I'm talking about: Global Warming is accepted by essentially the entire community of climate scientists; Global Cooling, apparently, was not. I don't know how much support it got, but I feel that I have adequately countered your assertion that "The science of global cooling theory was undeniable".
I only had the time and inclination to listen to the first couple minutes of that video. What can I say? He's wrong. Humans might "usually" get it wrong, but that doesn't matter: over our long history we have continuously improved, getting more and more right over time. Our rate of progress accelerated with the invention of science, a belief system which corrects itself. What is the point? That AGW theory could be wrong? Of course it can! Anything could be wrong. That's not the question. The question is how likely are we to be wrong? Are we wrong that the Earth goes around the Sun? Yeah, maybe, but it's not likely. In fact it's so unlikely that to think the Sun goes around the Earth is unreasonable. I proffer that AGW is the same. We've had AGW theory for, what, a little over a hundred years? Okay, so in a hundred years consensus has built from zero to nearly universal, among those who study it. Could AGW be wrong? Sure, maybe, but to assert so is unreasonable, in my opinion.
You don't exactly sound like an angry ideologue so we needn't argue. If you disagree with me, that's fine. I sign out of this dialogue with no insults, because it doesn't sound like you deserve them. Be well.
There it is: a slide-to-unlock mechanism, already implemented, on a handheld device even, available for many decades.
The problem with the patent system is not the theory but rather the implementation we have in this country. Patents are theoretically okay, but they are actually bad. Apparently prior art like I have quoted here, and which is widely available, I'm sure, in many other products, doesn't count -- and that's a problem. It SHOULD count.
Well, okay, but I'm comparing cervix skin to urethra skin. (Is it called skin when it's on the inside? Whatever.) Lots of skin turns over quickly, so it's not clear to me, as a layperson, whether the skin replenishment rate is the thing that makes cervix cancer different than penis cancer. It's certainly very plausible that the cervix cell churn rate is the reason for increased cervix cancer, but it's also plausible that it could be something else. For now, you all have made quite a convincing argument, and I'm happy to go with it, because I ain't got nothin' better.
I appreciate that response. That is very informative. Can you say whether the cell turnover on the cervix is definitely greater than the cell turnover in the male urethra?
Also, you didn't say so explicitly, but you used the word "we", which implies that you are a doctor. You can convert your post from +5 Interesting to +5 Informative if you can say that you are actually a doctor.
I was only alive for a couple months in the 70s, but wasn't the worry about nuclear winter? I know we had a one-decade cooling event, or something, but I've never heard that there was a scientific consensus that we would slip back into an ice age.
If you can show that there was scientific consensus, that "the science was undeniable" as you say, then you might have the beginnings of reasonable doubt. But if not, and I suspect not, then not -- you have only unreasonable doubt.
I don't think so. You suggested that a "drop in the bucket" of something just couldn't possibly be a problem. I think that's wrong. I used ricin to demonstrate that. It's not supposed to be a deep metaphor because a little extra CO2 in the atmosphere isn't going to make Earth drop dead, it's just going to make it a little bit warmer. If you can accept that -- which you should, because its truth has been demonstrated -- then it's just a matter of trying to predict what will change when things are a little bit warmer, and whether we judge that change to be good or bad. Most of us judge as bad the range of predictions for what will change, which takes us to the political question of what, if anything, to do about it. But I stand by my refutation of your attempt to claim that a little bit of CO2 just simply couldn't be a problem.
Okay, yeah, but to be fair, libertarians are idiots. I mean, not idiots exactly, but more like childish thinkers, unable to see the complexity of the real world, trying to shoehorn reality into a very, very narrow ideology. So, okay, calling them idiots is a gloss, but it's a pretty good gloss.
Not that I'm suggesting it, but Rome is the longest-running government I can name. (Government, not country; that would be, what, China?) Let's ignore the democratic Roman era and just go with the part ruled by emperors: didn't that last for, like 1200 years or something?
I just looked it up. There was 500 years of Roman Republic followed by about 1500 years of Roman Empire. I'm just saying. Stability isn't everything. I also like freedom, although stability is also nice.
Slashdot Mirror
Compuserve is for fogies. I like eWorld.
1. Yes.
2. I'm worried about Apple's future behavior, because of their past behavior.
Actually I'm not worried, because I no longer use Apple products, which I no longer do because of that past behavior.
Holy shit, is this Righthaven storyline the most satisfying nerd storyline of the last half-century or what? This is even better than SCO! I just can't believe that justice has rained down so hard in this case.
You have falsely equated peer review with denialism, two things that couldn't be any more different. Nobody should take you seriously.
Oh, well this wasn't private property, it was common property owned by a publicly regulated organization of homeowners. That's why you don't have to put a handicap spot in your driveway in front of your house, but an organization of homeowners large enough to be publicly regulated and have a communal parking lot does. So, yeah, the property wasn't private. It also wasn't "taken" in a legal sense, I think. Unlike you, I am not a lawyer at all.
How would a US business do if it got out that they wouldn't serve black people?
I imagine it would look similar to what Augusta National does in not accepting female members: they would be just fine. A company that didn't accept black people would... be just fine. Many companies and organizations do that to different levels. They might lose a few customers, and they might gain some more.
Do we "need" such a law? That's a political question. I think yes; it's an ongoing policy and we vote on it when we elect new representatives.
So, again, the question is, do we prefer a world where it's actually against the law to discriminate on those bases? or do we prefer a world where the government is limited from the power to have that sort of law? Maybe we want both things, but it really is a real choice between them and they are mutually exclusive. It's perfectly fair to prefer the limited government, but it's important to honestly account
This is great! I'm happy to have this decision, but I wish the ruling were on the merits instead of being dismissed for lack of standing.
Tiny government can't rain down wrath. Tiny government can be downed in a bathtub -- have you ever heard that metaphor? Any corporation could easily overpower a tiny government, and that's what the libertarians want, which is perfectly fair political ideology.
I'm under the impression that tampering with a VIN is in fact illegal, but I can't quote a law about it. Covering it up? I'm not sure about that.
"How"? You mean, by issuing a warrant for his arrest, arresting him, and processing him the way all other criminals are processed? How else would they do it?
If you paint a pair of lines and a handicapped symbol in your driveway, that doesn't make it a handicapped spot under the law. If you open your house as a business for the public, then that does. The details are in the law.
Surely that is clear to you.
That sort of misses the point, which is that libertarians want to eliminate laws which apply to equal treatment. And that's fair, so long as they are up-front and honest about it:
"Yes, we want to allow employers to refuse to hire black people. We think that racism is a smaller problem than government intrusion."
That is fair and honest.
Ha! That would be awesome! I'd love to hear a lawyer try to explain why
"nor be deprived of... property, without due process of law"
applies to situations governed by the process of law. That would be hilarious!
Actually, no, I've never seen that. I'm sure it happens sometimes, somewhere, but the only way I've seen handicapped spaces used is by people who get out and walk to the store with no apparent problem; or people who sit there and idle while another able-bodied person gets out and goes into the store. I see those semi-regularly. But the thing I usually see handicapped spaces used for is... nothing, like they're empty, about 98% of the time I see them.
I am fully in support of the concept of handicapped spaces, but our implementation is very, very bad. I suggest:
* the death penalty for doctors who give handicapped stickers to people who don't need them
* the death penalty for people who use handicapped stickers when they don't need them
* reducing handicapped spaces by 80%, dropping most parking lots down to one or at most two spaces
The post by AC used that phrase. I responded to that, and you responded to me. Forgive the misattribution. Instead of accusing you of preposterously saying that a drop in the bucket of something couldn't possibly affect the thing, I should have accused you of preposterously saying that the ricin metaphor was inaptly applied to AGW. It was a good metaphor to refute the suggestion that a drop in the bucket of a substance couldn't affect the bucket. I disagree that it is a bad metaphor: it is a good metaphor which does 'hold water' in the proverbial 'bucket'. If you demand a metaphor using a substance found naturally in the body, which in greater abundance causes serious problems, you can choose any bodily substance. Formaldehyde comes to mind as a substance made naturally by bodily functions, but which in larger amounts causes serious harm. The metaphor is the same and sufficient for the point.
I don't have time or inclination to look it up, but the wiki you sent says "The [global cooling] hypothesis had mixed support in the scientific community". That's the distinction I'm talking about: Global Warming is accepted by essentially the entire community of climate scientists; Global Cooling, apparently, was not. I don't know how much support it got, but I feel that I have adequately countered your assertion that "The science of global cooling theory was undeniable".
I only had the time and inclination to listen to the first couple minutes of that video. What can I say? He's wrong. Humans might "usually" get it wrong, but that doesn't matter: over our long history we have continuously improved, getting more and more right over time. Our rate of progress accelerated with the invention of science, a belief system which corrects itself. What is the point? That AGW theory could be wrong? Of course it can! Anything could be wrong. That's not the question. The question is how likely are we to be wrong? Are we wrong that the Earth goes around the Sun? Yeah, maybe, but it's not likely. In fact it's so unlikely that to think the Sun goes around the Earth is unreasonable. I proffer that AGW is the same. We've had AGW theory for, what, a little over a hundred years? Okay, so in a hundred years consensus has built from zero to nearly universal, among those who study it. Could AGW be wrong? Sure, maybe, but to assert so is unreasonable, in my opinion.
You don't exactly sound like an angry ideologue so we needn't argue. If you disagree with me, that's fine. I sign out of this dialogue with no insults, because it doesn't sound like you deserve them. Be well.
Agreed. Here's more. Did the patent office not look very hard for prior art? I only had to look for about two seconds:
http://www.toolzone.com/acatalog/info_DW1363.html
There it is: a slide-to-unlock mechanism, already implemented, on a handheld device even, available for many decades.
The problem with the patent system is not the theory but rather the implementation we have in this country. Patents are theoretically okay, but they are actually bad. Apparently prior art like I have quoted here, and which is widely available, I'm sure, in many other products, doesn't count -- and that's a problem. It SHOULD count.
Well, okay, but I'm comparing cervix skin to urethra skin. (Is it called skin when it's on the inside? Whatever.) Lots of skin turns over quickly, so it's not clear to me, as a layperson, whether the skin replenishment rate is the thing that makes cervix cancer different than penis cancer. It's certainly very plausible that the cervix cell churn rate is the reason for increased cervix cancer, but it's also plausible that it could be something else. For now, you all have made quite a convincing argument, and I'm happy to go with it, because I ain't got nothin' better.
I appreciate that response. That is very informative. Can you say whether the cell turnover on the cervix is definitely greater than the cell turnover in the male urethra?
Also, you didn't say so explicitly, but you used the word "we", which implies that you are a doctor. You can convert your post from +5 Interesting to +5 Informative if you can say that you are actually a doctor.
I was only alive for a couple months in the 70s, but wasn't the worry about nuclear winter? I know we had a one-decade cooling event, or something, but I've never heard that there was a scientific consensus that we would slip back into an ice age.
If you can show that there was scientific consensus, that "the science was undeniable" as you say, then you might have the beginnings of reasonable doubt. But if not, and I suspect not, then not -- you have only unreasonable doubt.
I am not a doctor. My guess is that urine keeps the penis cleaner than the cervix. Are there any doctors who can comment on my guess?
Awesome, so I nailed it when I pulled 1200 years out of my butt. Thanks for the history lesson.
I don't think so. You suggested that a "drop in the bucket" of something just couldn't possibly be a problem. I think that's wrong. I used ricin to demonstrate that. It's not supposed to be a deep metaphor because a little extra CO2 in the atmosphere isn't going to make Earth drop dead, it's just going to make it a little bit warmer. If you can accept that -- which you should, because its truth has been demonstrated -- then it's just a matter of trying to predict what will change when things are a little bit warmer, and whether we judge that change to be good or bad. Most of us judge as bad the range of predictions for what will change, which takes us to the political question of what, if anything, to do about it. But I stand by my refutation of your attempt to claim that a little bit of CO2 just simply couldn't be a problem.
That's the number-two best thing I can think of which has ever come out of France. Number one is shaven legs.
Okay, yeah, but to be fair, libertarians are idiots. I mean, not idiots exactly, but more like childish thinkers, unable to see the complexity of the real world, trying to shoehorn reality into a very, very narrow ideology. So, okay, calling them idiots is a gloss, but it's a pretty good gloss.
Not that I'm suggesting it, but Rome is the longest-running government I can name. (Government, not country; that would be, what, China?) Let's ignore the democratic Roman era and just go with the part ruled by emperors: didn't that last for, like 1200 years or something?
I just looked it up. There was 500 years of Roman Republic followed by about 1500 years of Roman Empire. I'm just saying. Stability isn't everything. I also like freedom, although stability is also nice.