You truly don't understand, do you. If all the customers of the idiotic insurer are good Christians, they will not get any contraceptives. Ergo, nobody would get contraceptives, the idiot insurer would not have to reimburse, and the premium of the idiot insurer goes down, and nobody actually pays for the service. Apparently the customers of the idiot insurer are not as strong in the faith as the idiot insurer, and he wants the government to give him a stick to beat the flock into their version of moral behavior.
Sure, every country in the entire fucking world does this. However, the United States of America are the only country in the world that rides the moral high horse, calls itself the land of the free, calls itself the leader of the free world and considers itself the New World. Fact of the matter, apart from being just another country in the world, the United States are a bunch of hypocrites.
Hmm. Punched in beta.slashdot.org, and didn't see much difference. Home page, comments, ability to edit. I've been around here for a bit, so what's the beef? Why do shills and trolls have a better game at the new site compared to the old?
There are few CEOs that actually are worth their dime. Almost all of them are founders. The others... not much evidence on their actual contribution to the company as a whole. Hired CEOs are a gamble, and more often than not have a net negative effect on the company. Paying losers top dollars is not good business sense. Paying a CEO milliions more does not necessarily result in the company earning billions more. But that's the math you just can't understand.
But when it's a train, where two train-wagons run bumper to bumper, you would call it a feature? Having the cars essentially lock together and then run 160 mph is not only safe, it is also energy efficient. When you literally run bumper to bumper with a distance of 10 cm, the impact of a sudden change in speed is much less than when you have a runway of a few 10s of meters in which the front car can decelerate enough to have a significant difference in speed from the car running in its back. And it's a lot more energy efficient to make essentially one car out of two.
So the GP says that the Republicans and Democrats are equally guilty of Gerrymandering and that this should stop. You retort that the Democrats started it, and they are now giving Republicans a hard time for doing it in Texas. What's your point? Do you think Gerrymandering is okay because the Reps copied the Dems? Gerrymandering is a nightmare, regardless of who does it. You seem to disagree.
A representative democracy is a form of government where the people elect representatives who gather in a body (often called a house) where they cast their votes. In that body majority rules. A constitutional republic is a form of government that has a constitution and where the leader of the state is elected (not appointed. The UK and the US are representative democracies. The US and China are constitutional republics. Is the US more like China, or more like the UK in the way government works?
No use trying giving some perspective on the issue. The USA was the first modern representative democracy, and all choices that were made in those early days (when there was by definition no experience) were obviously optimal and therefore have eternal validity. This is due to the intellectual and moral superiority of the people involved in the process. No finer set of men have since then set foot on this earth. In all time, they are only surpassed by Jesus.
Note entirely true. "First (inventor) to file" is the European system, "First to Discover" used to be the American system until they changed in March 2013 to "first to file". You still would need to show that you invented it under "first to file", but the filing date is the tie-breaker if you both can show you invented it. The US allows a year between public disclosure and filing. In Europe, public disclosure voids filing. Those are the rules.
That the military has created an algorithm that is as good as the 'expert' is not very impressive if the 'expert' itself is no better than random guessing. Polygraphs have consistently failed blind tests in exactly the setup you describe: people very accurately measure physiological response using the polygraph, and then correlate these with the subject lying or not. Guess what, that last step doesn't work. Regardless of physiology of the subject. There is no evidence that lying consistenly leads to the type of physiological response that is measured by the polygraph. Hence it is pseudo-science.
If you want to compare it with a breathalyzer -- the reason we put trust in the breathalyzer is that we know there is a physical cause (amount of alcohol in the blood) that we are trying to measure. In the polygraph case, we are trying to measure 'level of lying', which is not physical in the same sense. For your argumentation to make sense, you would need to propose something like a 'lie particle' that is emitted by people that lie. Come to think of it, this is really very close to what proponents of polygraphy argue!
Ah, a true free market fundie. Property rights as both the necessary and sufficient condition for a free market to come into existence. Necessary, probably, sufficient, no freaking way. A single private individual owning all property would be a 'free market'. A number of individuals that own sufficient amount of resources to create barriers to entry are another 'free market'. As the 19th century has shown, this is where this type of 'laissez-faire' free market will converge to.
What is needed (as a sufficient condition), is the ability to compete. Without competition, no free market. However, property rights are not sufficient for competition. If I own the widget market, and have a gaziilion bucks, I can stop competition. How I will do that? Well, when you with your meagre million start to create and sell widgets, I will undercut you. I will sell at a loss. I will give it away for free. I will give it away for free until you are broke. I've got a gazillion bucks, I can give it away for free for a very long time. Then I (or my offspring) will raise prices again, and will get the rest of my gazillion dollars back. If you also have a gazillion dollars, we will meet and agree not to harass each other. We will also agree to help each other to keep everyone else out. We both have a gazillion, and if we do this, we will each have 2 gazillion, instead of each having only having 1 gazillion due to us competing. Because it is just us two, or maybe a handful, we can do this, using promises we give in person. Promises we will keep because it will make each of us richer. We will still dictate price to a level that optimizes our income.
So, who can make sure that I do not give away my produce for free to kill all competition? Who can make sure that I'm not determining price with my competitors? The free market? You've got to be kidding. There's only one entity that can do this: the law, i.e., government. It is a job for government to keep the free market competitive and to limit the negative effects of excess capital. Read that again: negative effects of excess capital. The government needs to keep the market competitive for it to remain free. If you don't believe me, please explain how the scenario's I sketched above are countered by property rights alone. We need a right to compete for it to work.
He obviously decided that his particular view of religion needs hyphens. Who are you to criticize this completely arbitrary belief system? It's as valid as the next.
Correction: *every* system in the Western world but one survives fine without plea bargain. Plea bargaining occurs outside the US, but is the exception, not the rule. It's an American thing, even to the bad economy of putting people in jail to save money on courts. The US has 7 times the number of people in jail than European countries.
Dude, I'm just responding to people that argue that the only reason the Nazis could have taken over the country was by restricting gun ownership. This is demonstrably false: the Nazis didn't need to restrict gun ownership, the majority of the population put them into power and supported them all the way. Furthermore, they did really did something about gun ownership. It's a delusion to argue that the Nazis show that the second amendment keeps the government honest.
BTW, the page you link to shows a change in gun permit law enacted in 1938 (superseding the non-Nazi law of 1928) makes rifles and ammunition for rifles unregulated, lowers the age of the handgun permit from 20 to 18, makes this permit last for 3 years instead of 1, and... makes gun ownership illegal for Jews. So, except for the Jew thing, (but don't forget about the muslims) this looks more like an action from the NRA than from anyone else.
So the Nazis took what they wanted, including guns. Your point is, what exactly? Once the government has become evil and starts to take what they want, hand all over, except your guns? Or, when the government comes in to take what they want start shooting? How would your granddad have fared in 1939?
And the point is that most of the arguments surrounding artificial intelligence are just that: semantic tricks. And that includes both sides. Or, as Dykstra put it: the question whether machines think or not is just as interesting as arguing about submarines being capable of swimming.
Slashdot Mirror
You truly don't understand, do you. If all the customers of the idiotic insurer are good Christians, they will not get any contraceptives. Ergo, nobody would get contraceptives, the idiot insurer would not have to reimburse, and the premium of the idiot insurer goes down, and nobody actually pays for the service. Apparently the customers of the idiot insurer are not as strong in the faith as the idiot insurer, and he wants the government to give him a stick to beat the flock into their version of moral behavior.
No it's not called slavery. Paying for something you will never ever use has never been called slavery. You might want to buy a dictionary.
Sure, every country in the entire fucking world does this. However, the United States of America are the only country in the world that rides the moral high horse, calls itself the land of the free, calls itself the leader of the free world and considers itself the New World. Fact of the matter, apart from being just another country in the world, the United States are a bunch of hypocrites.
Hmm. Punched in beta.slashdot.org, and didn't see much difference. Home page, comments, ability to edit. I've been around here for a bit, so what's the beef? Why do shills and trolls have a better game at the new site compared to the old?
[citation needed]
NSA is spying on enemies. NSA is spying on American citizens. Therefore American citizens are enemies.
Yes, dirt/mud roads, very limited services, privately owned infrastructure. Death, starvation and servitude. All the good stuff.
Wait. What? Atheism being more popular today than in the 70's? That definitely needs a citation.You've got a warped sense of history.
I guess they could also take a CEO from that other country. Problem solved.
There are few CEOs that actually are worth their dime. Almost all of them are founders. The others ... not much evidence on their actual contribution to the company as a whole. Hired CEOs are a gamble, and more often than not have a net negative effect on the company. Paying losers top dollars is not good business sense. Paying a CEO milliions more does not necessarily result in the company earning billions more. But that's the math you just can't understand.
But when it's a train, where two train-wagons run bumper to bumper, you would call it a feature? Having the cars essentially lock together and then run 160 mph is not only safe, it is also energy efficient. When you literally run bumper to bumper with a distance of 10 cm, the impact of a sudden change in speed is much less than when you have a runway of a few 10s of meters in which the front car can decelerate enough to have a significant difference in speed from the car running in its back. And it's a lot more energy efficient to make essentially one car out of two.
So the GP says that the Republicans and Democrats are equally guilty of Gerrymandering and that this should stop. You retort that the Democrats started it, and they are now giving Republicans a hard time for doing it in Texas. What's your point? Do you think Gerrymandering is okay because the Reps copied the Dems? Gerrymandering is a nightmare, regardless of who does it. You seem to disagree.
A representative democracy is a form of government where the people elect representatives who gather in a body (often called a house) where they cast their votes. In that body majority rules. A constitutional republic is a form of government that has a constitution and where the leader of the state is elected (not appointed. The UK and the US are representative democracies. The US and China are constitutional republics. Is the US more like China, or more like the UK in the way government works?
No use trying giving some perspective on the issue. The USA was the first modern representative democracy, and all choices that were made in those early days (when there was by definition no experience) were obviously optimal and therefore have eternal validity. This is due to the intellectual and moral superiority of the people involved in the process. No finer set of men have since then set foot on this earth. In all time, they are only surpassed by Jesus.
Note entirely true. "First (inventor) to file" is the European system, "First to Discover" used to be the American system until they changed in March 2013 to "first to file". You still would need to show that you invented it under "first to file", but the filing date is the tie-breaker if you both can show you invented it. The US allows a year between public disclosure and filing. In Europe, public disclosure voids filing. Those are the rules.
What's wrong with "You make a grown man cry"? "Start me up" FTW.
If you want to compare it with a breathalyzer -- the reason we put trust in the breathalyzer is that we know there is a physical cause (amount of alcohol in the blood) that we are trying to measure. In the polygraph case, we are trying to measure 'level of lying', which is not physical in the same sense. For your argumentation to make sense, you would need to propose something like a 'lie particle' that is emitted by people that lie. Come to think of it, this is really very close to what proponents of polygraphy argue!
What is needed (as a sufficient condition), is the ability to compete. Without competition, no free market. However, property rights are not sufficient for competition. If I own the widget market, and have a gaziilion bucks, I can stop competition. How I will do that? Well, when you with your meagre million start to create and sell widgets, I will undercut you. I will sell at a loss. I will give it away for free. I will give it away for free until you are broke. I've got a gazillion bucks, I can give it away for free for a very long time. Then I (or my offspring) will raise prices again, and will get the rest of my gazillion dollars back. If you also have a gazillion dollars, we will meet and agree not to harass each other. We will also agree to help each other to keep everyone else out. We both have a gazillion, and if we do this, we will each have 2 gazillion, instead of each having only having 1 gazillion due to us competing. Because it is just us two, or maybe a handful, we can do this, using promises we give in person. Promises we will keep because it will make each of us richer. We will still dictate price to a level that optimizes our income.
So, who can make sure that I do not give away my produce for free to kill all competition? Who can make sure that I'm not determining price with my competitors? The free market? You've got to be kidding. There's only one entity that can do this: the law, i.e., government. It is a job for government to keep the free market competitive and to limit the negative effects of excess capital. Read that again: negative effects of excess capital. The government needs to keep the market competitive for it to remain free. If you don't believe me, please explain how the scenario's I sketched above are countered by property rights alone. We need a right to compete for it to work.
He obviously decided that his particular view of religion needs hyphens. Who are you to criticize this completely arbitrary belief system? It's as valid as the next.
Correction: *every* system in the Western world but one survives fine without plea bargain. Plea bargaining occurs outside the US, but is the exception, not the rule. It's an American thing, even to the bad economy of putting people in jail to save money on courts. The US has 7 times the number of people in jail than European countries.
BTW, the page you link to shows a change in gun permit law enacted in 1938 (superseding the non-Nazi law of 1928) makes rifles and ammunition for rifles unregulated, lowers the age of the handgun permit from 20 to 18, makes this permit last for 3 years instead of 1, and ... makes gun ownership illegal for Jews. So, except for the Jew thing, (but don't forget about the muslims) this looks more like an action from the NRA than from anyone else.
So the Nazis took what they wanted, including guns. Your point is, what exactly? Once the government has become evil and starts to take what they want, hand all over, except your guns? Or, when the government comes in to take what they want start shooting? How would your granddad have fared in 1939?
And the point is that most of the arguments surrounding artificial intelligence are just that: semantic tricks. And that includes both sides. Or, as Dykstra put it: the question whether machines think or not is just as interesting as arguing about submarines being capable of swimming.
Of course. They were not considered citizens, right?
2) Can machines swim? No, submarines don't swim.
If you can satisfactory explain the discrepancy between the answers for those two statements, you might be able to contribute. -