Crazy? No. Unfortunate? Certainly. Hypochondria? Possibly. Time to do some experiments.
It is unreasonable to assume that parts of the electromagnetic spectrum are dangerous absent empirical evidence of same. That's what "reasonable" means.
My point about murdering wasn't that I wanted to murder you, but that in a civil society we DO have a framework of shared values, where murdering (and, I assert, fraud and stealing) are wrong.
I'm not questioning Icahn's right to make whatever argument he wants. I'm questioning his credibility and integrity. I think he's defrauding the shareholders, and I think that's wrong.
I believe there is no such moral structure. Stealing is amoral. Deceit is amoral. Depriving a person of wealth by deceit is amoral.
I'm not philosopher enough to assert a Universal Moral Theorem, but I am human enough to know something that's wrong when I see it. And lying to Yahoo stockholders to create a short-term bubble to cash in on is wrong.
So are you trying to assert there's some sort of moral structure where rapacious capitalism is acceptable? Where it's OK to do a pump-and-dump stock scheme, and the suckers left holding the bag deserve to have their money stolen?
"So when was the last time you drove a two-seater roadster with extremely limited storage space more than 100 miles away from your home?"
Um, every month or so? My wife and I drive all over the place in the Miata. Never really understood why two people need a station wagon's worth of junk for a long weekend trip.
"The Constitution doesn't apply to the world at large. It is by and for US citizens."
Read it again. It is a list of things that the United States Federal Government is allowed to do, and enjoined from doing. It doesn't give anybody any rights...it enumerates specific rights (and an incomplete list of those rights) that the US Government is particularly not allowed to infringe.
I love the folded-open engine bay. One of the docents said that they did it just to fit the aircraft in the room, but I think it's my favorite SR-71 display anywhere.
The Constitution outlines the authority of the Government. If it's not in the Constitution, the Feds can't do it. The only authority for the Government to do anything at all comes from the Constitution. Note also that the Constitution does not enumerate what can and cannot be done to citizens vs. non-citizens. It enumerates what the Government is allowed to do to persons.
Of course, that's a statement of principle, and it's been completely ignored by those who seek to extend their own power, but that doesn't mean that they're right.
Also, please compare gun ownership in the US to Switzerland. Yes, there is a lot of violence in the US, and that's terrible. Outlawing guns will not solve that problem.
Slashdot Mirror
Can't prove a negative. I win!
I guarantee they're interested. They just can't compete.
"dismisses this as crazy."
Crazy? No. Unfortunate? Certainly. Hypochondria? Possibly. Time to do some experiments.
It is unreasonable to assume that parts of the electromagnetic spectrum are dangerous absent empirical evidence of same. That's what "reasonable" means.
My point about murdering wasn't that I wanted to murder you, but that in a civil society we DO have a framework of shared values, where murdering (and, I assert, fraud and stealing) are wrong.
I'm not questioning Icahn's right to make whatever argument he wants. I'm questioning his credibility and integrity. I think he's defrauding the shareholders, and I think that's wrong.
Says me. And says anybody else who wishes to live in a civil society.
If you don't like it, feel free to let me murder you.
I believe there is no such moral structure. Stealing is amoral. Deceit is amoral. Depriving a person of wealth by deceit is amoral.
I'm not philosopher enough to assert a Universal Moral Theorem, but I am human enough to know something that's wrong when I see it. And lying to Yahoo stockholders to create a short-term bubble to cash in on is wrong.
So are you trying to assert there's some sort of moral structure where rapacious capitalism is acceptable? Where it's OK to do a pump-and-dump stock scheme, and the suckers left holding the bag deserve to have their money stolen?
Because I'd love to hear the argument.
"but domestic aviation's more important to the US than to just about anybody else, innit? "
Ever heard of Asia? They've got a lot of islands over there, and lotsa people to move around.
When you are a human being, it is your responsibility to act in an ethical and moral fashion, period.
I've read the Constitution cover to cover, and I didn't encounter the notion of a "free speech zone" even ONCE.
I think your copy is broken.
The only one that matters is not.
How much tax revenue comes from business enabled by communications satellites? Compare that to NASA's budget.
Case closed.
If you've got a plan to feed the world and provide universal health care for the cost of NASA's measly budget, I am dying to hear it.
Since I guarantee that you don't, I think you're making a silly argument.
Could NASA's funds be better managed? Absolutely. But Congress won't allow that.
"So when was the last time you drove a two-seater roadster with extremely limited storage space more than 100 miles away from your home?"
Um, every month or so? My wife and I drive all over the place in the Miata. Never really understood why two people need a station wagon's worth of junk for a long weekend trip.
"The Constitution doesn't apply to the world at large. It is by and for US citizens."
Read it again. It is a list of things that the United States Federal Government is allowed to do, and enjoined from doing. It doesn't give anybody any rights...it enumerates specific rights (and an incomplete list of those rights) that the US Government is particularly not allowed to infringe.
Not "citizens".
Not "non-terrorists".
Everybody.
(well, that's the way it was designed, anyhow...)
I love the folded-open engine bay. One of the docents said that they did it just to fit the aircraft in the room, but I think it's my favorite SR-71 display anywhere.
I love that museum!
That's a fundamental misunderstanding.
The Constitution outlines the authority of the Government. If it's not in the Constitution, the Feds can't do it. The only authority for the Government to do anything at all comes from the Constitution. Note also that the Constitution does not enumerate what can and cannot be done to citizens vs. non-citizens. It enumerates what the Government is allowed to do to persons.
Of course, that's a statement of principle, and it's been completely ignored by those who seek to extend their own power, but that doesn't mean that they're right.
"Voting is a privilege, not a right as some would have us believe."
I need for you to point out to me in the Constitution where you got that ridiculous assertion.
Background tasks like checking mail (I use Chattermail) slaughter the battery on my Treo 700p. I can just barely get through the day without charging.
Portions of the US with concealed carry gun laws are safer than areas without such laws.
Danger is not linear with number of guns. It is more closely related to the arms gap between law-abiding citizens and criminals.
"we can have that so long as the sex education course is equally funded and has an equivalently varied curriculum"
Deal. Now who do we vote for?
Tyrants prefer unarmed peasants.
Also, please compare gun ownership in the US to Switzerland. Yes, there is a lot of violence in the US, and that's terrible. Outlawing guns will not solve that problem.
Good thing I don't need to have an excuse, huh?
So art is necessarily about an enlightened being shining his light of True Seeing on us poor, benighted normals?
No thank you.
"Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man" was pretentious rubbish.
There...happy?
I'd say somebody who knows about shape memory alloys knows that Terminator II has nothing to do with our current understanding of shape memory alloys.
So, that'd be a "yes". : )