No mistake, it is, Islam. But as with any major religion there are many different sects with their own beliefs, and many individual beliefs of the people within those sects. The only way to have religion with perfect internal conformity is to have a religion of one person.
But I note that you disagreed only with what the punishment should be. Obama is still an apostate Muslim by the rules of any of the major sects of Islam regardless of whether he considers himself Muslim. But I don't give a damn what a billion and a half Muslims think. The only thing that could matter is whether Obama considers himself to be a Muslim, which is highly doubtful.
You can see the data, but unless you have evidence of some conspiracy by the scientists involved, what does this serve?
That is for judges to decide on a per-case basis. If they want to use science in the legal system, then science has to play by the legal system's rules. We're not going violate the rights of a defendant in order to not hurt the feelings of some scientists.
and if you can convince a court that, say, evolution doesn't have enough supporting math
Is the science behind evolution being used in a lawsuit against someone to determine damages or culpability, or to determine guilt in a criminal trial?
I don't see the benefit in allowing the legal system to decide how the process of science works.
They're not. They're saying that if the process in one particular scientific investigation is germane to one particular court case, then that process must be revealed. If it's super-sensitive for some reason, then courts do commonly admit things under seal.
Basically, scientists are not above the law, and should not seek to be so.
If your research is paid with public money, all but personal information should be available via FOIA, not just a subpoena. If your research is privately funded, then it should be available by subpoena if it is relevant to a case.
In other words, BP will be able to use all the scientists' correspondence, records, and preliminary results to call their estimates into question.
Your research will be the basis on which another party is penalized by the legal system. In its defense, the party believes it has the right to see your research in order to mount a defense. Isn't this how it is supposed to work? If the defense tries to poke holes in research during the trial, I'm sure the other side will call the scientists or expert witnesses to defend their research.
Allowing this special protection effectively guts the defense of anyone who has scientific research results used against him in court.
It is perfectly possible to discuss even serious and difficult problems without inciting hate
It is very difficult when the other side is extremely sensitive to what we would consider normal discourse. I don't feel we should dumb-down our discourse to please an overly-sensitive group. Preconceptions and traditions need to be challenged, or we live in the past, never advancing. After centuries of debate and reflection, the Jews have come to terms with Moses as a flawed man. Any aspect of Jesus can be debated in Christian societies. But try to discuss Mohammed's flaws in front of Muslims, and you may get a price on your head.
He was talking about campaign strategy, where to put the advertising dollars and people on the ground, just as Obama was when he spoke about the bitter people clinging to their guns and religion.
In the US, we have all this classified information that we don't see a strategic reason for classifying. In both cases, the strategic reasoning is that the government doesn't want its people to know!
Usually the reason is that they just classified it out of habit, or they always work at "SECRET" level, and always click that classification button by default without really taking the time to properly classify the document. This is government workers here for the most part, not sinister, just people pulling a paycheck.
However, the leaks did include the names of Afghanis who are helping the US, and leaking the information put their lives in danger. That is a valid reason to keep information secret.
If it were a problem with the software, I might agree. But the problem is with the data, which Apple admits has a crowdsourced component. If you have a problem with this, then you have a problem with crowdsourcing.
the new Lightning connector on the iPhone has an IC designed solely to prevent creation of compatible cables,
Pure speculation, and wrong. The controller is there to allow the wires in the cable to be used for different functions as needed. The chip can negotiate with a USB end to line up power and signals for USB transmission, or with a power end to just line up power. This means it will also likely negotiate with a video cable end to send video signals, etc. Apple built a future-proof connector that doesn't require getting tied down to the physical constraints of any one standard. Doing this required a chip, can't do it with plain wire.
It's increasingly starting to look like the post-Jobs Apple is no longer putting the customer experience first.
There is evidence this may be true with the stores. Traditionally they put the customer ahead of every other consideration, and the profits rolled in naturally. With the new retail head, it looks like they may be starting to think like a standard retailer.
Apple still relies on a lot of outside data sources for iOS functionality. They just needed to get away from Google for the maps, since that was restricting what Apple could do, and in Apple's opinion collecting too much data about users.
need to grow a pair and take responsibility for their own lives
Watch out for saying the truth like that. Romney mentioned personal responsibility and is getting nailed in the press for it. Apparently that makes you uncaring and condescending. Bill Cosby even said blacks need to step up with personal responsibility and he was labeled a race traitor.
I'm not sure what to make your example, but I'd say there's no good reason for Adobe to be doing that.
When Photoshop has to apply a gaussian blur or other operations on a 500 MB CMYK image, some pretty intense math goes into it. Adobe was not getting very good performance from the compilers no matter how hard they tried, so they identified the performance bottlenecks and rewrote them in assembler, resulting in huge performance gains. If they're competent enough to write tight assembler, they're probably competent developers overall. Adobe products have always pushed the performance abilities of the current hardware, with the exception of what they got with Macromedia, which just sucks.
As with most things in life, the best solution lies somewhere in the middle. Automation is not as good as human, because humans wrote the automation -- there's a layer there. It cannot apply human intuition to every single item individually, only apply human intuition as general rules translated into automation. But humans require automation to accomplish things on such a large scale in a reasonable amount of time. The logical solution: Automate where you can, manually adjust where you must. Until true AI comes, the best we can probably do now is write the automation to identify where it isn't sure whether it has used an optimal solution.
Remember how people praised Woz's Apple I circuit board as a work of art? Circuits are an art form as much as a science, so while automation can do well, that artistic human touch still does better.
He's a Copt. These Egyptian Christians are used to being oppressed and murdered at will by the Muslim majority. It seems that every time some group of Muslims gets mad, they go kill some Copts.
It appears this one didn't take the high road kumbaya non-threatening approach of his local Egyptian brethren, which is kind of necessary for them to prevent being completely wiped out. Instead, he probably has some pretty justified hate for what they did to his people.
Our two-party system has encouraged both parties to polarize at opposite ends. Crazies and fringe elements? It doesn't get much crazier than Sheila Jackson-Lee or Cynthia McKinney, both Democrats.
Pierce v. Society of Sisters in the 1920s affirmed the right to enroll in private schools instead of public. The Protestants who ran Oregon were worried about the influence that Catholic schools would have on society, so they passed a law to ban them, directing all children to the Protestant-run public schools where they used the Protestant Bible. Banning Catholic schools would be too direct and obvious, so as is usual they tried to work around that, banning private schools in general (some exceptions, of course).
He gave a reasonable interpretation that is by no means a stretch from the plain text and context. Likewise, "thou shalt not kill" in context can't be understood to be an absolute prohibition on killing or few Christians or Jews ever would have gone to war, or defended their homelands against the invading Muslims. Context is important.
This is not the mental gymnastics you get when trying to say that the Bible didn't condone slavery, or doesn't condemn homosexuality (even in the NT).
Designed to further disallow jury nullification. Across the board, the right of a juror to vote his or her conscience and judge the law itself (be it civil or criminal) is understood. The problem is the system tries to throw up as many roadblocks to the exercise of that right as possible.
That few percent is willing to go violent easily for their cause. The problem is a few percent of 1.5 billion is an awful lot of people. Given that almost every country that has a Muslim majority has implemented some form "politicla Islamism", I'd say a majority of Muslims would support it.
The number of Christians in America who would support a Christian version of that is very small, and the number willing to get violent is extremely small. If it weren't, we'd have had deadly riots over Piss Christ and a dead artist. But the most we got was the standard hate mail you get from anything that pisses people off (remember, people who opposed gay marriage in California got death threats too), and an effort to keep the government from paying for it. Nobody killed him for it as happened to Van Gogh. As it is, the worst we've had is a couple lone rangers killing abortion doctors, and they believed they were directly saving babies from being murdered by executing serial killers.
As far as general attitude, look at how we treat most extreme. Jihadists are admired by many Muslims. We laugh at the Westboro Baptists, and most people fighting against them are Christians.
Cyrus the Great let everybody of any religion live in peace in his kingdom. He even paid respect to the minority religions, including ordering the rebuilding of the Jewish Temple. Islam had nothing on Cyrus when it came to religious tolerance.
There is a real purpose in this. Back then all Muslim men were required to fight. Jews were not required to fight, so in lieu of service they pay a tax. Many societies have done something like this.
The rest is correct though. Sorry, they need to grow the hell up if they don't want to be nuked from orbit by really pissing off someone eventually.
Much of the Old Testament was superseded by the New Testament. The God of Anger and Hate was replaced by the God of Peace and Love. For example, you are no longer supposed to execute people for working on the Sabbath. Unfortunately, Mohammed decided to crib his new theology mainly from the Old Testament.
Get back with me when the Quran gets a New Testament.
No, I'm not even Christian, but the difference between the two is quite obvious. Equivocation is a cop-out.
We'll illegalize *all* religious intolerance, period. That means a Catholic church and a synagogue are free to be built in Mecca, people of those faiths free to enter the city, live there and attend their services. That means evangelical Christians are free to roam throughout Muslims countries and try to convert Muslims. They and converted Muslims will be without fear of legal or extra-legal punishment. Jews get to rebuild their first Temple, the likely location of which is right next to the Al-Aqsa Mosque on Temple Mount in a currently empty area.
But you know this won't happen, the tolerance goes only one way.
It is the right of every juror in any case to vote his conscience, and not necessarily what the judge wants him to vote as pressured through tailored instructions. Voire dire tries to weed out these jurors, depriving the parties in the suit, or the defendant in criminal cases, of their rights. IMHO, the question is basically null.
Slashdot Mirror
No mistake, it is, Islam. But as with any major religion there are many different sects with their own beliefs, and many individual beliefs of the people within those sects. The only way to have religion with perfect internal conformity is to have a religion of one person.
But I note that you disagreed only with what the punishment should be. Obama is still an apostate Muslim by the rules of any of the major sects of Islam regardless of whether he considers himself Muslim. But I don't give a damn what a billion and a half Muslims think. The only thing that could matter is whether Obama considers himself to be a Muslim, which is highly doubtful.
That is for judges to decide on a per-case basis. If they want to use science in the legal system, then science has to play by the legal system's rules. We're not going violate the rights of a defendant in order to not hurt the feelings of some scientists.
Is the science behind evolution being used in a lawsuit against someone to determine damages or culpability, or to determine guilt in a criminal trial?
They're not. They're saying that if the process in one particular scientific investigation is germane to one particular court case, then that process must be revealed. If it's super-sensitive for some reason, then courts do commonly admit things under seal.
Basically, scientists are not above the law, and should not seek to be so.
If your research is paid with public money, all but personal information should be available via FOIA, not just a subpoena. If your research is privately funded, then it should be available by subpoena if it is relevant to a case.
Your research will be the basis on which another party is penalized by the legal system. In its defense, the party believes it has the right to see your research in order to mount a defense. Isn't this how it is supposed to work? If the defense tries to poke holes in research during the trial, I'm sure the other side will call the scientists or expert witnesses to defend their research.
Allowing this special protection effectively guts the defense of anyone who has scientific research results used against him in court.
It is very difficult when the other side is extremely sensitive to what we would consider normal discourse. I don't feel we should dumb-down our discourse to please an overly-sensitive group. Preconceptions and traditions need to be challenged, or we live in the past, never advancing. After centuries of debate and reflection, the Jews have come to terms with Moses as a flawed man. Any aspect of Jesus can be debated in Christian societies. But try to discuss Mohammed's flaws in front of Muslims, and you may get a price on your head.
SECRET
"When do you want to go to lunch?"
"How about noon?"
SECRET
He was talking about campaign strategy, where to put the advertising dollars and people on the ground, just as Obama was when he spoke about the bitter people clinging to their guns and religion.
Usually the reason is that they just classified it out of habit, or they always work at "SECRET" level, and always click that classification button by default without really taking the time to properly classify the document. This is government workers here for the most part, not sinister, just people pulling a paycheck.
However, the leaks did include the names of Afghanis who are helping the US, and leaking the information put their lives in danger. That is a valid reason to keep information secret.
If it were a problem with the software, I might agree. But the problem is with the data, which Apple admits has a crowdsourced component. If you have a problem with this, then you have a problem with crowdsourcing.
Pure speculation, and wrong. The controller is there to allow the wires in the cable to be used for different functions as needed. The chip can negotiate with a USB end to line up power and signals for USB transmission, or with a power end to just line up power. This means it will also likely negotiate with a video cable end to send video signals, etc. Apple built a future-proof connector that doesn't require getting tied down to the physical constraints of any one standard. Doing this required a chip, can't do it with plain wire.
There is evidence this may be true with the stores. Traditionally they put the customer ahead of every other consideration, and the profits rolled in naturally. With the new retail head, it looks like they may be starting to think like a standard retailer.
Apple still relies on a lot of outside data sources for iOS functionality. They just needed to get away from Google for the maps, since that was restricting what Apple could do, and in Apple's opinion collecting too much data about users.
Watch out for saying the truth like that. Romney mentioned personal responsibility and is getting nailed in the press for it. Apparently that makes you uncaring and condescending. Bill Cosby even said blacks need to step up with personal responsibility and he was labeled a race traitor.
When Photoshop has to apply a gaussian blur or other operations on a 500 MB CMYK image, some pretty intense math goes into it. Adobe was not getting very good performance from the compilers no matter how hard they tried, so they identified the performance bottlenecks and rewrote them in assembler, resulting in huge performance gains. If they're competent enough to write tight assembler, they're probably competent developers overall. Adobe products have always pushed the performance abilities of the current hardware, with the exception of what they got with Macromedia, which just sucks.
As with most things in life, the best solution lies somewhere in the middle. Automation is not as good as human, because humans wrote the automation -- there's a layer there. It cannot apply human intuition to every single item individually, only apply human intuition as general rules translated into automation. But humans require automation to accomplish things on such a large scale in a reasonable amount of time. The logical solution: Automate where you can, manually adjust where you must. Until true AI comes, the best we can probably do now is write the automation to identify where it isn't sure whether it has used an optimal solution.
So there's no reason why Adobe compiled most of Photoshop the regular way, but hand-coded performance-sensitive parts in assembler.
Remember how people praised Woz's Apple I circuit board as a work of art? Circuits are an art form as much as a science, so while automation can do well, that artistic human touch still does better.
Long ago in Germany, I was 100 meters too far away to get DSL.
He's a Copt. These Egyptian Christians are used to being oppressed and murdered at will by the Muslim majority. It seems that every time some group of Muslims gets mad, they go kill some Copts.
It appears this one didn't take the high road kumbaya non-threatening approach of his local Egyptian brethren, which is kind of necessary for them to prevent being completely wiped out. Instead, he probably has some pretty justified hate for what they did to his people.
Our two-party system has encouraged both parties to polarize at opposite ends. Crazies and fringe elements? It doesn't get much crazier than Sheila Jackson-Lee or Cynthia McKinney, both Democrats.
Pierce v. Society of Sisters in the 1920s affirmed the right to enroll in private schools instead of public. The Protestants who ran Oregon were worried about the influence that Catholic schools would have on society, so they passed a law to ban them, directing all children to the Protestant-run public schools where they used the Protestant Bible. Banning Catholic schools would be too direct and obvious, so as is usual they tried to work around that, banning private schools in general (some exceptions, of course).
He gave a reasonable interpretation that is by no means a stretch from the plain text and context. Likewise, "thou shalt not kill" in context can't be understood to be an absolute prohibition on killing or few Christians or Jews ever would have gone to war, or defended their homelands against the invading Muslims. Context is important.
This is not the mental gymnastics you get when trying to say that the Bible didn't condone slavery, or doesn't condemn homosexuality (even in the NT).
Designed to further disallow jury nullification. Across the board, the right of a juror to vote his or her conscience and judge the law itself (be it civil or criminal) is understood. The problem is the system tries to throw up as many roadblocks to the exercise of that right as possible.
That few percent is willing to go violent easily for their cause. The problem is a few percent of 1.5 billion is an awful lot of people. Given that almost every country that has a Muslim majority has implemented some form "politicla Islamism", I'd say a majority of Muslims would support it.
The number of Christians in America who would support a Christian version of that is very small, and the number willing to get violent is extremely small. If it weren't, we'd have had deadly riots over Piss Christ and a dead artist. But the most we got was the standard hate mail you get from anything that pisses people off (remember, people who opposed gay marriage in California got death threats too), and an effort to keep the government from paying for it. Nobody killed him for it as happened to Van Gogh. As it is, the worst we've had is a couple lone rangers killing abortion doctors, and they believed they were directly saving babies from being murdered by executing serial killers.
As far as general attitude, look at how we treat most extreme. Jihadists are admired by many Muslims. We laugh at the Westboro Baptists, and most people fighting against them are Christians.
Cyrus the Great let everybody of any religion live in peace in his kingdom. He even paid respect to the minority religions, including ordering the rebuilding of the Jewish Temple. Islam had nothing on Cyrus when it came to religious tolerance.
There is a real purpose in this. Back then all Muslim men were required to fight. Jews were not required to fight, so in lieu of service they pay a tax. Many societies have done something like this.
The rest is correct though. Sorry, they need to grow the hell up if they don't want to be nuked from orbit by really pissing off someone eventually.
Much of the Old Testament was superseded by the New Testament. The God of Anger and Hate was replaced by the God of Peace and Love. For example, you are no longer supposed to execute people for working on the Sabbath. Unfortunately, Mohammed decided to crib his new theology mainly from the Old Testament.
Get back with me when the Quran gets a New Testament.
No, I'm not even Christian, but the difference between the two is quite obvious. Equivocation is a cop-out.
We'll illegalize *all* religious intolerance, period. That means a Catholic church and a synagogue are free to be built in Mecca, people of those faiths free to enter the city, live there and attend their services. That means evangelical Christians are free to roam throughout Muslims countries and try to convert Muslims. They and converted Muslims will be without fear of legal or extra-legal punishment. Jews get to rebuild their first Temple, the likely location of which is right next to the Al-Aqsa Mosque on Temple Mount in a currently empty area.
But you know this won't happen, the tolerance goes only one way.
It is the right of every juror in any case to vote his conscience, and not necessarily what the judge wants him to vote as pressured through tailored instructions. Voire dire tries to weed out these jurors, depriving the parties in the suit, or the defendant in criminal cases, of their rights. IMHO, the question is basically null.