You claim to have knowledge of the intent of these voter ID laws and in Texas in particular. Can you cite any quotes from officials or lawmakers stating that is, in fact, the intent of these laws? Of course you can't.
Oh, come on, man. In what world do cheaters announce their intent to cheat?
Suppose the $60T estimate is right. Isn't that good? In a closed economy, income equals expenditure. Earth, for now, is a closed economy. Therefore, if we spend $60T on goods and services to deal with methane, then we will have $60T in income.
what's puzzling is that they decided to keep the recruitment drive now though... you would have thought that this was the obvious outcome
You're right about that. Their failure to see the obvious implies that what they may be good at is gathering data, but what they are bad at is understanding what it means.
Bicyclists should just stay the hell out of traffic. Fucking cyclists always complaining, I have yet to see one stop for a stop sign or a light...
What's your point?
In 45 years of cycling, I was hit by cars four times. Once, I was sideswiped by a careless motorist who stopped and apologized. The second time I was sideswiped, it was intentional. The crazy bastard yelled an obscenity, just like the one you used in your moronic post. The fourth time I was hit was by a guy who signaled a right turn, changed his mind, and swung left attempting a u-turn. He got two of us.
The other time? I was stopped at a red light. You never saw a cyclist stop for a light? I guess that other jackass who hit me from behind didn't either.
Give me Arabica from Java, Indonesia, equatorial Africa.
For clarification about arabica coffee: in my late 20s and early 30s (a very long time ago), I worked in the coffee import business. As I recall, there are two basic types of coffee; arabica and robusta. The arabica beans, no matter where they come from, are the superior coffee, at least with respect to flavor. Robusta beans are generally used as filler, or in manufactured coffee products like freeze-dried coffee, or in extremely dark roasts. Robusta beans do have one thing going for them (besides being cheaper); they have higher caffeine content.
Throughout the coffee growing regions, there are many varieties of arabica coffees. Depending on where and how they are grown, subtle, and some not so subtle, differences among the varieties can be appreciated. There are guys on the Green Coffee Exchange in New York, and no doubt elsewhere, who can correctly identify the origin of coffees in blind taste tests. I wasn't one of them, but I learned a good deal about coffee while working among those folks.
One thing I learned is that for most people, how a given coffee is roasted has more to do with how it tastes than does where it's from. Also of great importance is how the coffee is brewed. Coffee graders always roast and brew in a specific way so that when grading, they taste the differences inherent in the beans.
While I definitely agree that arabica coffee is what I would want, I think that a blanket statement about what region's coffee to avoid would be hard to support if given the chance to compare well made arabica coffee from Colombia, Hawaii, Jamaica, and elsewhere.
Also, it is interesting that one would have a preference for arabica coffee from Indonesia in particular. So little of it comes from there. Indonesian coffee is 90% robusta.
A good model for ideal human behavior, sure, but actual behavior?
Note that although prairie voles do form life-long bonds, they are not sexually monogamous. The pair will stay together, and cooperate in raising offspring, but will copulate with others. That looks a lot like actual human behavior.
You complimented me on my "nice ad hominem". Thank you, but I get no credit there. My saying "Self-contradiction appears to be a habit with you" is not an ad hominem. An ad hominem is an argument in the form "my opponent is bad (or good), therefore my opponent's argument is bad (or good)". An observation of a person's behavior is not an argument at all, and therefore not an ad hominem. Had I said "dressing well appears to be a habit with you", the form would have been identical, but you would not likely have mistaken it for an ad hominem. The complimentary antecedent would not have blinded you to the absent consequent the way the unflattering one did.
My assertion that self contradiction appears to be a habit with you was a statement of fact, not an argument. You, however, disagree with the truth of my asserted fact. What can we do to resolve whether the fact is true or not? Argue from evidence! Here is my evidence:
1. Writing "I decline to play this game" as your move in the game is a self-contradictory statement. You made the statement; therefore, you contradicted yourself.
2. You wrote "If God created the universe, then he exists outside of it, and it is unreasonable for us to expect to comprehend the nature of existence in a realm outside of and above our own." Then you wrote "I claim God exists in a realm outside our own....I reason that he must". The second statement contradicts the first. If it is unreasonable, you cannot reason it. If you can reason it, then it is not unreasonable. You made both statements; therefore, you contradicted yourself.
3. and 4. You wrote "I decline to play this game" early Tuesday morning. But, by Tuesday evening, you played your next move, saying, among other things, "I commented on the "game"...but I did not play it". Given that commenting is the game, you contradicted yourself twice. First by playing after saying you decline to play, and second by making the self-contradictory statement that you played it (by commenting) but did not play it.
If the four examples attributed to you were made by you, then you contradicted yourself at least four times in our very brief acquaintance. Therefore, my assertion that self-contradiction appears to be a habit with you is not only not an ad hominem, but also not unfounded.
Yes, I claim God exists in a realm outside our own
Alright then, we agree that you said God exists in a realm outside our own. Good so far.
Arguing by extension is exactly what you did
I remind you, I made no argument whatever. I quoted you. That is not an argument.
I asked you a question about your statement. As you have confirmed that you did in fact claim "God exists in a realm outside our own", and as you previously stated "it is unreasonable for us to expect to comprehend the nature of existence" in that realm, I will reiterate my question: if there is, as you asserted, a realm "outside of and above our own" that is "unreasonable for us to expect to comprehend", is it reasonable to declare, as you did, what exists in such a realm? No argument yet; just a question.
From the indirect answer you gave, "So, who am I to say what exists there? Again, I am a finite human being, so I cannot", I could infer that you think it is not reasonable to declare what exists in an incomprehensible realm outside the Universe. However, I do not want to put words in your mouth. I would like you to answer the question directly; a simple yes or no will be appreciated. Is it reasonable to declare what exists in an incomprehensible realm outside the Universe?
Note that my comment did not declare what exists in such a realm.
I think that you did. Don't take my word for it, though. Here are your own words:
If God created the universe, then he exists outside of it, and it is unreasonable for us to expect to comprehend the nature of existence in a realm outside of and above our own.
God, you said, exists in a realm outside of the Universe.
If you are arguing that by extension I am declaring what exists in such a realm
I am not arguing anything by extension; I'm quoting you. Other than God, you have not declared that anything else exists in that realm, but you did clearly declare that God does.
Implicit in your argument is the assumption that if something exists, then it must have been created. If that assumption is correct, then if the Universe exists, it must have been created. What created the Universe? Some people, perhaps including you, would answer that God created the Universe. Does God exist? If so, what created God? Now you have the problem of an infinite regress.
This is only a problem if you make it one. If God created the universe, then he exists outside of it, and it is unreasonable for us to expect to comprehend the nature of existence in a realm outside of and above our own.
If, instead, you admit that some questions are not answerable in this realm, then such problems cease to be problems, and you can move on to relevant questions.
Or, to put it another way, if I accept your conclusions a priori, then logical argument is a waste of our time.
Note that my prior comment did not argue for or against the existence of God. It was, instead, questioning the validity of BitZtream's criticism of Hawking's logic.
Moving on, then, to relevant questions: if there is, as you asserted, a realm "outside of and above our own" that is "unreasonable for us to expect to comprehend", is it reasonable to declare, as you did, what exists in such a realm?
Why do the quantum fluctuations exist, what do they exist in, what created them?
Implicit in your argument is the assumption that if something exists, then it must have been created. If that assumption is correct, then if the Universe exists, it must have been created. What created the Universe? Some people, perhaps including you, would answer that God created the Universe. Does God exist? If so, what created created God? Now you have the problem of an infinite regress.
If, however, the assumption is incorrect, then the Universe can exist without having been created. If the Universe can exist without having been created, then your criticism of Hawking's logic is poorly supported.
The thing is, do you really want someone telling you what gun is appropriate for you to own?
I want someone to drastically reduce the probability that any one will spray our children, our relatives, our friends, or our fellow citizens with bullets.
How much alcohol can you own?
I want someone to drastically reduce the probability that any one will drink herself insensible and crash her fucking SUV head-on into any more of my friends' cars.
If so, where do you draw the line?
There is no "line". The slippery slope argument, as you present it, is nonsense. We can say "No, you can't have an assault weapon," without saying "No, you can't own all the liquor you can afford." We can say "No, you can't drink and drive," without saying "No, you can't buy an SUV."
See, here's how it works in civilized societies: we weigh the costs and benefits of particular freedoms and responsibilities. We agree, as best we can, after consideration and argument, what we should allow and what we shouldn't. For example: the benefit to gun nuts of owning assault weapons is exceedingly low in comparison to the cost to parents whose children are slaughtered. The benefit to drunkards of guzzling all the liquor they can hold and then going for a spin is exceedingly small in comparison to the cost to society. Remember society? That's US...you, and me, and all our friends, and all theirs...
As it is clear that if considerations were limited to the costs and benefits mentioned in my examples, then owning assault weapons would be prohibited, just as drunk driving is. Why then isn't it? I speculate it is because the folks who make a killing by selling assault weapons spend a lot of that money on advertising and PR to get folks like you to think the way you do. They want you to imagine that if they can't sell their deadly wares that will somehow diminish your freedom. Now that the liquor industry has given up fighting against drunk driving laws, are you less free? I'm not.
"You couldn't even be bothered to RTFS, could you? This is about a legal claim against Apple, it has nothing to do with them operating a walled garden (though I agree this is a bad thing)."
Oh! I thought he was referring to the Ravensburger game "Mystery Garden".
Slashdot Mirror
I hate it when that happens.
Syria launching chemical weapons makes about as much sense as Obama nuking Texas.
All options are on the table.
You claim to have knowledge of the intent of these voter ID laws and in Texas in particular. Can you cite any quotes from officials or lawmakers stating that is, in fact, the intent of these laws? Of course you can't.
Oh, come on, man. In what world do cheaters announce their intent to cheat?
You can cower and boot-lick your way through life if you want. Me, I want to live free.
Hence the Anonymous Cowardice.
I can't think of any Oracle product that competes with Apple.
Oracle 12 and MySQL 5 compete with Apple's Filemaker.
every good joke has a punchline.
How's this punchline: "The Red, White, and Blue Screen of Death"?
Suppose the $60T estimate is right. Isn't that good? In a closed economy, income equals expenditure. Earth, for now, is a closed economy. Therefore, if we spend $60T on goods and services to deal with methane, then we will have $60T in income.
what's puzzling is that they decided to keep the recruitment drive now though... you would have thought that this was the obvious outcome
You're right about that. Their failure to see the obvious implies that what they may be good at is gathering data, but what they are bad at is understanding what it means.
Bicyclists should just stay the hell out of traffic. Fucking cyclists always complaining, I have yet to see one stop for a stop sign or a light...
What's your point?
In 45 years of cycling, I was hit by cars four times. Once, I was sideswiped by a careless motorist who stopped and apologized. The second time I was sideswiped, it was intentional. The crazy bastard yelled an obscenity, just like the one you used in your moronic post. The fourth time I was hit was by a guy who signaled a right turn, changed his mind, and swung left attempting a u-turn. He got two of us.
The other time? I was stopped at a red light. You never saw a cyclist stop for a light? I guess that other jackass who hit me from behind didn't either.
He's there to design turtlenecks for Tim and Jony.
wants to work or live in NYC?
Me.
Give me Arabica from Java, Indonesia, equatorial Africa.
For clarification about arabica coffee: in my late 20s and early 30s (a very long time ago), I worked in the coffee import business. As I recall, there are two basic types of coffee; arabica and robusta. The arabica beans, no matter where they come from, are the superior coffee, at least with respect to flavor. Robusta beans are generally used as filler, or in manufactured coffee products like freeze-dried coffee, or in extremely dark roasts. Robusta beans do have one thing going for them (besides being cheaper); they have higher caffeine content.
Throughout the coffee growing regions, there are many varieties of arabica coffees. Depending on where and how they are grown, subtle, and some not so subtle, differences among the varieties can be appreciated. There are guys on the Green Coffee Exchange in New York, and no doubt elsewhere, who can correctly identify the origin of coffees in blind taste tests. I wasn't one of them, but I learned a good deal about coffee while working among those folks.
One thing I learned is that for most people, how a given coffee is roasted has more to do with how it tastes than does where it's from. Also of great importance is how the coffee is brewed. Coffee graders always roast and brew in a specific way so that when grading, they taste the differences inherent in the beans.
While I definitely agree that arabica coffee is what I would want, I think that a blanket statement about what region's coffee to avoid would be hard to support if given the chance to compare well made arabica coffee from Colombia, Hawaii, Jamaica, and elsewhere.
Also, it is interesting that one would have a preference for arabica coffee from Indonesia in particular. So little of it comes from there. Indonesian coffee is 90% robusta.
A good model for ideal human behavior, sure, but actual behavior?
Note that although prairie voles do form life-long bonds, they are not sexually monogamous. The pair will stay together, and cooperate in raising offspring, but will copulate with others. That looks a lot like actual human behavior.
Those are analog POTS lines. Should be safe from digital snooping.
You complimented me on my "nice ad hominem". Thank you, but I get no credit there. My saying "Self-contradiction appears to be a habit with you" is not an ad hominem. An ad hominem is an argument in the form "my opponent is bad (or good), therefore my opponent's argument is bad (or good)". An observation of a person's behavior is not an argument at all, and therefore not an ad hominem. Had I said "dressing well appears to be a habit with you", the form would have been identical, but you would not likely have mistaken it for an ad hominem. The complimentary antecedent would not have blinded you to the absent consequent the way the unflattering one did.
My assertion that self contradiction appears to be a habit with you was a statement of fact, not an argument. You, however, disagree with the truth of my asserted fact. What can we do to resolve whether the fact is true or not? Argue from evidence! Here is my evidence:
1. Writing "I decline to play this game" as your move in the game is a self-contradictory statement. You made the statement; therefore, you contradicted yourself.
2. You wrote "If God created the universe, then he exists outside of it, and it is unreasonable for us to expect to comprehend the nature of existence in a realm outside of and above our own." Then you wrote "I claim God exists in a realm outside our own....I reason that he must". The second statement contradicts the first. If it is unreasonable, you cannot reason it. If you can reason it, then it is not unreasonable. You made both statements; therefore, you contradicted yourself.
3. and 4. You wrote "I decline to play this game" early Tuesday morning. But, by Tuesday evening, you played your next move, saying, among other things, "I commented on the "game"...but I did not play it". Given that commenting is the game, you contradicted yourself twice. First by playing after saying you decline to play, and second by making the self-contradictory statement that you played it (by commenting) but did not play it.
If the four examples attributed to you were made by you, then you contradicted yourself at least four times in our very brief acquaintance. Therefore, my assertion that self-contradiction appears to be a habit with you is not only not an ad hominem, but also not unfounded.
I decline to play this game.
He said, ironically, while taking his final shot from the free throw line.
Self-contradiction appears to be a habit with you.
Yes, I claim God exists in a realm outside our own
Alright then, we agree that you said God exists in a realm outside our own. Good so far.
Arguing by extension is exactly what you did
I remind you, I made no argument whatever. I quoted you. That is not an argument.
I asked you a question about your statement. As you have confirmed that you did in fact claim "God exists in a realm outside our own", and as you previously stated "it is unreasonable for us to expect to comprehend the nature of existence" in that realm, I will reiterate my question: if there is, as you asserted, a realm "outside of and above our own" that is "unreasonable for us to expect to comprehend", is it reasonable to declare, as you did, what exists in such a realm? No argument yet; just a question.
From the indirect answer you gave, "So, who am I to say what exists there? Again, I am a finite human being, so I cannot", I could infer that you think it is not reasonable to declare what exists in an incomprehensible realm outside the Universe. However, I do not want to put words in your mouth. I would like you to answer the question directly; a simple yes or no will be appreciated. Is it reasonable to declare what exists in an incomprehensible realm outside the Universe?
Note that my comment did not declare what exists in such a realm.
I think that you did. Don't take my word for it, though. Here are your own words:
If God created the universe, then he exists outside of it, and it is unreasonable for us to expect to comprehend the nature of existence in a realm outside of and above our own.
God, you said, exists in a realm outside of the Universe.
If you are arguing that by extension I am declaring what exists in such a realm
I am not arguing anything by extension; I'm quoting you. Other than God, you have not declared that anything else exists in that realm, but you did clearly declare that God does.
Who am I to say what exists there...?
That, I suppose, is the next "relevant question".
Or, to put it another way, if I accept your conclusions a priori, then logical argument is a waste of our time.
Note that my prior comment did not argue for or against the existence of God. It was, instead, questioning the validity of BitZtream's criticism of Hawking's logic.
Moving on, then, to relevant questions: if there is, as you asserted, a realm "outside of and above our own" that is "unreasonable for us to expect to comprehend", is it reasonable to declare, as you did, what exists in such a realm?
Why do the quantum fluctuations exist, what do they exist in, what created them?
Implicit in your argument is the assumption that if something exists, then it must have been created. If that assumption is correct, then if the Universe exists, it must have been created. What created the Universe? Some people, perhaps including you, would answer that God created the Universe. Does God exist? If so, what created created God? Now you have the problem of an infinite regress.
If, however, the assumption is incorrect, then the Universe can exist without having been created. If the Universe can exist without having been created, then your criticism of Hawking's logic is poorly supported.
I've known people with dozens of guns and thousands of rounds of ammunition. They've never killed anyone
yet
Homosexuality, abortion, and contraception don't have victims (unless you make up some imaginary ones).
Aborted fetuses are imaginary, in your view? Or is it your position that they are not victims?
I'm reminded of General Jack Ripper.
I can no longer sit back and allow smart phones to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.
The thing is, do you really want someone telling you what gun is appropriate for you to own?
I want someone to drastically reduce the probability that any one will spray our children, our relatives, our friends, or our fellow citizens with bullets.
How much alcohol can you own?
I want someone to drastically reduce the probability that any one will drink herself insensible and crash her fucking SUV head-on into any more of my friends' cars.
If so, where do you draw the line?
There is no "line". The slippery slope argument, as you present it, is nonsense. We can say "No, you can't have an assault weapon," without saying "No, you can't own all the liquor you can afford." We can say "No, you can't drink and drive," without saying "No, you can't buy an SUV."
See, here's how it works in civilized societies: we weigh the costs and benefits of particular freedoms and responsibilities. We agree, as best we can, after consideration and argument, what we should allow and what we shouldn't. For example: the benefit to gun nuts of owning assault weapons is exceedingly low in comparison to the cost to parents whose children are slaughtered. The benefit to drunkards of guzzling all the liquor they can hold and then going for a spin is exceedingly small in comparison to the cost to society. Remember society? That's US...you, and me, and all our friends, and all theirs...
As it is clear that if considerations were limited to the costs and benefits mentioned in my examples, then owning assault weapons would be prohibited, just as drunk driving is. Why then isn't it? I speculate it is because the folks who make a killing by selling assault weapons spend a lot of that money on advertising and PR to get folks like you to think the way you do. They want you to imagine that if they can't sell their deadly wares that will somehow diminish your freedom. Now that the liquor industry has given up fighting against drunk driving laws, are you less free? I'm not.
"You couldn't even be bothered to RTFS, could you? This is about a legal claim against Apple, it has nothing to do with them operating a walled garden (though I agree this is a bad thing)."
Oh! I thought he was referring to the Ravensburger game "Mystery Garden".