You obviously cannot cross a plant with a fish through selective breeding. But you're arguing the method not the result. (CS analogy, "I've never heard of a merge sort successfully sorting an array by repeatedly swapping adjacent items like bubble sort"). Just because you can't breed a fish and a plant doesn't mean you cannot get the same resultant organism through breeding. You can, but it takes a whole lot longer.
Perhaps one of us is having trouble understanding it. I read it this way:
A. Taking guns away from your citizens is an act of tyranny. B. A government that commits acts of tyranny is tyrannical. Therefore: C. A government taking guns away from its citizens is tyrannical.
To answer your question, I added: D. Japan's government takes guns from its citizens. Therefore: E. Japan's government is tyrannical.
If being tyrannical is a binary condition then his reasoning is absolutely sound. I don't think tyranny is binary which is why I qualify it "when it comes to their laws restricting ownership of guns, Japan is a tyrannical nation." Either I completely misunderstood his point, or he did give logical reasoning. I think it's rather uncharitable to dismiss something that seems logical as faulty without good cause.
No it's not a strawman it's a cum hoc ergo propter hoc and a fallacy of the single cause. You were supposed to notice the flaw and also notice that it's present in your original argument.
That varies by state. WA didn't require anything from me other than a background check. Not that I haven't taken training of my own accord, mind you. It just wasn't mandatory.
He made a claim and then backed up the claim with logical reasoning. How does that match with "You claiming that it is does not make it so"? All nations do things that are tyrannical. To answer your question directly, yes, when it comes to their laws restricting ownership of guns, Japan is a tyrannical nation.
The UK bans guns. The US permits guns. Homicide rates in the UK are less than homicide rates in the US. Therefore, permitting guns increases homicide rates
In 1650 there were many pirates. In 1995 there were few pirates. Global temperatures in 1650 were lower than global temperatures in 1995. Therefore, increasing pirate volume lowers global temperatures..
Copyright gives the holder control over the right to copy, perform, adapt, etc. FOX as the holder of the copyright gets to license others. If FOX thinks that their licenses are not being followed precisely or in spirit or whatever they're alleging then that does violate their rights to control how their works are showed. Whether you or I or the courts agrees that there is a violation is up in the air, but copyright is at issue.
Here at MIT in one of the world's finest robotics labs we've secretly replaced the coffee grounds in these articulated manipulators with rich, sparkling Folgers crystals to see if scientists can tell the difference.
That failed on the very first page I tried: Defenestrations of Prague Bohemia Czech language West Slavic languages Slavic languages Language Human Taxonomy Ancient Greek Greek language Indo-European languages Language family Language Language was already seen so we'll loop forever without reaching philosophy.
On a side note I was about to check the recursion article assuming it would link to itself at the very top when I noticed this comment: Making the Recursion article link to itself will not display correctly, and is considered to break [[WP:ASTONISH]]. The joke itself is already featured in the "Recursive humor" section. See discussion on the talk page.
Remember the original big DVR war of ReplayTV vs. Tivo? ReplayTV had a commercial skipping feature, and fighting off the lawsuits basically dove them out of business.
Recently I've been noticing advertisements on TV and billboards with a company's facebook page listed in addition to or in place of where you might expect to see a more full-fledged website's url. It reminds me of a decade ago when everyone was listing "www.foo.com or AOL keyword foo."
Several of the arguments you're making do not hold up.
Atheist is impelled by conviction fuelled by external evidence, or lack of evidence. It's incredibly compelling to note that the two largest theist franchises claim their deity possesses three qualities - omnipotence, omniscience, and benevolence - and that the state of the world is completely at odds with any entity with all three qualities existing. It's also compelling to note that the more we discover about the universe, the more things we discover that work just fine without any kind of deity.
Your first assertion is the equivalent of the common, "why would a perfect god allow X?" That is not a refutation of the existence of God. It suggests that God doesn't exist OR we have an imperfect understanding of either God or the universe. The second point is a note that there is a lack of evidence, which again doesn't point one way or the other.
Atheists don't make a positive virtue of unshakable faith. If anything we use this as an argument ad-hominem about how childish theists are. If you proved that a particular deity existed with actual evidence, most of us would probably a) pee ourselves b) recant our position.
You claim that if real proof of God's existence were offered then most Atheists would recant their positions. But you also seem to be assuming that the inverse is not true. I see no basis for thinking that a religious person would not recant his position if the opposite one were proven. Neither position is currently proven, and I don't foresee that happening any time soon.
Many of the the most prominent atheists in the media are scientists, a kind of person who by definition delves into mysteries to see how they actually work. I personally find that atheism arises most in those with a questioning mind, the kind of mind that finds that understanding, for example, how the transition of electrons through particular quantum states governs the colour of the light emitted, does not diminish the beauty of phenomena like their aurora borealis, but instead enhances it.
Does the scientist delve in to the mystery because he dislikes it? I think you'll find as many scientists claiming to like the mystery he's exploring as you'll find theologists with the same claim.
I don't think atheists have a woody for the absence of a deity. I don't think you can be sexually excited about the absence of something. I think atheists, just like everyone else, can have displacement of their sexual urges in a fetishistic style for other things, but I think the main difference is that we get excited by things we chose, or happened upon by chance, or had advertised to us, instead of something we were told to find exciting by a preacher man.
The idea of God's existence and the idea of God's inexistence are just two more "things." Either can be and are fetishised, as you note humans sometimes do,or not. As for how you come across them I think you're making a distinction without a difference. You can chance across a "preacher man." You can choose the religion. You can choose the atheism. And it seems to me that from a non-religious point of view the advertiser and the "preacher man" are markedly similar.
Atheism is the belief, without evidence, in the lack of existence of any deity. Theism is the belief, without evidence, in the existence of some deity or deities or their rough equivalents. Both are unproven and (probably) non-falsifiable beliefs.
While I agree with you that requiring licenses for firearms is foolish, I don't think that was really a factor here. He had licenses for his firearms, and he was still charged for their possession. If the police are corrupt enough to trump up charges on you, given the will, they will have little trouble inventing something.
The number line represents the continuum, that is the real numbers. The debates about the foundations of mathematics are old and ongoing, but most hold that the natural numbers {1, 2, 3,...} are intuitive and axiomatic and prove the rest formally. Heck, Kroneckers well-known quote, "God made the natural numbers; all else is the work of man" is saying exactly that.
Fair enough. A small DDOS attack will take down a single web server. The OP was asking about mid size sites*, so I assumed you were as well. I think a small site probably is better off paying one of those services than spending its limited resources on the problem.
* Definitions of mid size will differ of course too. I had in mind something like netflix, photobucket, or yelp, who would definitely be running on a good number of machines and possibly at multiple physical locations (not that I know anything about how any of those randomly chosen examples actually operates)
I like a variant of the arrow wit a flat front. In the steps from your link, between steps 2 and 3 fold the front point back to the point where the two triangular flaps meet the proceed as normal. It's really straightforward to make, but works much better than the normal dart for me.
Slashdot Mirror
You obviously cannot cross a plant with a fish through selective breeding. But you're arguing the method not the result. (CS analogy, "I've never heard of a merge sort successfully sorting an array by repeatedly swapping adjacent items like bubble sort"). Just because you can't breed a fish and a plant doesn't mean you cannot get the same resultant organism through breeding. You can, but it takes a whole lot longer.
Don't worry "cloud" is just what Ellison likes to call litigation.
Perhaps one of us is having trouble understanding it. I read it this way:
A. Taking guns away from your citizens is an act of tyranny.
B. A government that commits acts of tyranny is tyrannical.
Therefore:
C. A government taking guns away from its citizens is tyrannical.
To answer your question, I added:
D. Japan's government takes guns from its citizens.
Therefore:
E. Japan's government is tyrannical.
If being tyrannical is a binary condition then his reasoning is absolutely sound. I don't think tyranny is binary which is why I qualify it "when it comes to their laws restricting ownership of guns, Japan is a tyrannical nation." Either I completely misunderstood his point, or he did give logical reasoning. I think it's rather uncharitable to dismiss something that seems logical as faulty without good cause.
No it's not a strawman it's a cum hoc ergo propter hoc and a fallacy of the single cause. You were supposed to notice the flaw and also notice that it's present in your original argument.
That varies by state. WA didn't require anything from me other than a background check. Not that I haven't taken training of my own accord, mind you. It just wasn't mandatory.
He made a claim and then backed up the claim with logical reasoning. How does that match with "You claiming that it is does not make it so"? All nations do things that are tyrannical. To answer your question directly, yes, when it comes to their laws restricting ownership of guns, Japan is a tyrannical nation.
The UK bans guns.
The US permits guns.
Homicide rates in the UK are less than homicide rates in the US.
Therefore, permitting guns increases homicide rates
In 1650 there were many pirates.
In 1995 there were few pirates.
Global temperatures in 1650 were lower than global temperatures in 1995.
Therefore, increasing pirate volume lowers global temperatures..
Copyright gives the holder control over the right to copy, perform, adapt, etc. FOX as the holder of the copyright gets to license others. If FOX thinks that their licenses are not being followed precisely or in spirit or whatever they're alleging then that does violate their rights to control how their works are showed. Whether you or I or the courts agrees that there is a violation is up in the air, but copyright is at issue.
Here at MIT in one of the world's finest robotics labs we've secretly replaced the coffee grounds in these articulated manipulators with rich, sparkling Folgers crystals to see if scientists can tell the difference.
That failed on the very first page I tried:
Defenestrations of Prague
Bohemia
Czech language
West Slavic languages
Slavic languages
Language
Human
Taxonomy
Ancient Greek
Greek language
Indo-European languages
Language family
Language
Language was already seen so we'll loop forever without reaching philosophy.
On a side note I was about to check the recursion article assuming it would link to itself at the very top when I noticed this comment:
Making the Recursion article link to itself will not display correctly, and is considered to break [[WP:ASTONISH]]. The joke itself is already featured in the "Recursive humor" section. See discussion on the talk page.
Remember the original big DVR war of ReplayTV vs. Tivo? ReplayTV had a commercial skipping feature, and fighting off the lawsuits basically dove them out of business.
Bloatware: software I dislike and wish to deride but for which I am unwilling or unable to give reasons why.
Recently I've been noticing advertisements on TV and billboards with a company's facebook page listed in addition to or in place of where you might expect to see a more full-fledged website's url. It reminds me of a decade ago when everyone was listing "www.foo.com or AOL keyword foo."
Since you asked so nicely. Yes, I was joking. Yes, Poe's Law applies.
There's no such thing as organic coal. To be certified organic a substance has to contain carbon.
Several of the arguments you're making do not hold up.
Atheist is impelled by conviction fuelled by external evidence, or lack of evidence. It's incredibly compelling to note that the two largest theist franchises claim their deity possesses three qualities - omnipotence, omniscience, and benevolence - and that the state of the world is completely at odds with any entity with all three qualities existing. It's also compelling to note that the more we discover about the universe, the more things we discover that work just fine without any kind of deity.
Your first assertion is the equivalent of the common, "why would a perfect god allow X?" That is not a refutation of the existence of God. It suggests that God doesn't exist OR we have an imperfect understanding of either God or the universe. The second point is a note that there is a lack of evidence, which again doesn't point one way or the other.
Atheists don't make a positive virtue of unshakable faith. If anything we use this as an argument ad-hominem about how childish theists are. If you proved that a particular deity existed with actual evidence, most of us would probably a) pee ourselves b) recant our position.
You claim that if real proof of God's existence were offered then most Atheists would recant their positions. But you also seem to be assuming that the inverse is not true. I see no basis for thinking that a religious person would not recant his position if the opposite one were proven. Neither position is currently proven, and I don't foresee that happening any time soon.
Many of the the most prominent atheists in the media are scientists, a kind of person who by definition delves into mysteries to see how they actually work. I personally find that atheism arises most in those with a questioning mind, the kind of mind that finds that understanding, for example, how the transition of electrons through particular quantum states governs the colour of the light emitted, does not diminish the beauty of phenomena like their aurora borealis, but instead enhances it.
Does the scientist delve in to the mystery because he dislikes it? I think you'll find as many scientists claiming to like the mystery he's exploring as you'll find theologists with the same claim.
I don't think atheists have a woody for the absence of a deity. I don't think you can be sexually excited about the absence of something. I think atheists, just like everyone else, can have displacement of their sexual urges in a fetishistic style for other things, but I think the main difference is that we get excited by things we chose, or happened upon by chance, or had advertised to us, instead of something we were told to find exciting by a preacher man.
The idea of God's existence and the idea of God's inexistence are just two more "things." Either can be and are fetishised, as you note humans sometimes do,or not. As for how you come across them I think you're making a distinction without a difference. You can chance across a "preacher man." You can choose the religion. You can choose the atheism. And it seems to me that from a non-religious point of view the advertiser and the "preacher man" are markedly similar.
Atheism is the belief, without evidence, in the lack of existence of any deity. Theism is the belief, without evidence, in the existence of some deity or deities or their rough equivalents. Both are unproven and (probably) non-falsifiable beliefs.
While I agree with you that requiring licenses for firearms is foolish, I don't think that was really a factor here. He had licenses for his firearms, and he was still charged for their possession. If the police are corrupt enough to trump up charges on you, given the will, they will have little trouble inventing something.
Geez. You'd think that one guy at Microsoft who writes all the software would have remembered last time he made that error and not duplicated it.
You know who else liked to suppress books they considered dangerous or "un-German?" The Nazis.
The number line represents the continuum, that is the real numbers. The debates about the foundations of mathematics are old and ongoing, but most hold that the natural numbers {1, 2, 3, ...} are intuitive and axiomatic and prove the rest formally. Heck, Kroneckers well-known quote, "God made the natural numbers; all else is the work of man" is saying exactly that.
Exactly. When you pump water out of the ground it's gone forever. It gets consumed, evaporates, and then it never rains again.
Overcrowding?
Zombies.
Leaving aside all the political gobbledygook, I'm totally in for an automated personal flying car.
Fair enough. A small DDOS attack will take down a single web server. The OP was asking about mid size sites*, so I assumed you were as well. I think a small site probably is better off paying one of those services than spending its limited resources on the problem.
* Definitions of mid size will differ of course too. I had in mind something like netflix, photobucket, or yelp, who would definitely be running on a good number of machines and possibly at multiple physical locations (not that I know anything about how any of those randomly chosen examples actually operates)
I like a variant of the arrow wit a flat front. In the steps from your link, between steps 2 and 3 fold the front point back to the point where the two triangular flaps meet the proceed as normal. It's really straightforward to make, but works much better than the normal dart for me.