There is no need to justify Adblock or the like, an http request is just a request for some information, it is not a promise to treat that information in a certain way.
You are saying the prisoners think that explanations excuse them from morality.
I'm saying the criminals are simply immoral. They are using the excuse merely in an attempt to avoid punishment, they don't care if you think they are naughty or nice.
Right, but those are just excuses that they have heard others use in attempts to avoid punishment, they are not reasoned moral objections to punishment.
Try "If NASA is willing to take the same risks with SpaceX that it routinely took with the Shuttle..."
The comparison in the article is a little strange, but the AC isn't worried about the comparison, they are talking about a trip to Mars justifying that risk.
There is a difference between a lawyer arguing on behalf of a criminal that their (fundamental) brain (structure) made them do it and criminals believing that their brain made them do it.
Basically, most criminals are stupid and/or lack a socially normal morality.
Save it from what? Human space flight using chemical rockets will never be anything other than a novelty and one of the largest investors in Tesla is one of the big Japanese automakers (so if Tesla 'saves' the US it will only be by handing part of it over to Toyota).
I think you are poorly estimating the motivations of many of the people that decry biological explanations for behavior. They have integrated their morality as a feature of the universe that they live in, not as a system of evaluating the actions of themselves and others (in other words, their ideas of good and bad are not in any way thoughtful, they are simply prescribed).
So concepts that undermine the idea that morality is a feature of the universe threaten their entire world view and they are not willing to use that threat as a reason to reconsider. So the idea that there is some meaningfully large body of criminal apologists is likely a fabrication, most sane people going to view the idea that there are biological explanations for behavior as a reason to modify the ways that we address antisocial behavior, not as a reason to simply accept the behavior.
Maybe define tiny. Military expenditures in 2010 were about $650 billion. Social Security payments were about $700 billion. So 1/2 of the military budget would seem to cover a tiny 1/2 of the social security outlay.
(I realize that the $700 billion present day outlay doesn't really speak to the future obligations, but you have the appearance of just making things up)
How is "(and as you say, why would anyone give away rights for no reason...)" related to wishful thinking?
The really weird part here is that the business entities involved here would likely be companies paying developers to work on projects external to that entity, a business entity running their own project is going to have their own lawyer-approved contribution agreement.
If you click around the EIA website, you can get a breakdown of the renewables. The growth is in ethanol, but other biomass is still the majority of it (presumably waste wood used for power generation is a big contributor, if they include firewood, it would also likely be a big contributor).
The quibble is moot, they made further changes to that section, making it quite clear. That said, I doubt they would get away with a claim like using the material in advertising was necessary.
Nah, they just didn't come up with language to make everyone happy on their first try. They have updated it again, to the following:
publicly display that stuff to the extent reasonably necessary for the Service. This license is solely to enable us to technically administer, display, and operate the Services.
Slashdot Mirror
There is no need to justify Adblock or the like, an http request is just a request for some information, it is not a promise to treat that information in a certain way.
You are saying the prisoners think that explanations excuse them from morality.
I'm saying the criminals are simply immoral. They are using the excuse merely in an attempt to avoid punishment, they don't care if you think they are naughty or nice.
They just dance around this by having the airlines be the ones that want security.
If you can afford to charter a plane, you can have whatever security measures you want in place, including none.
Right, but those are just excuses that they have heard others use in attempts to avoid punishment, they are not reasoned moral objections to punishment.
In the novelette, the vampire disease blows in on the wind.
So blame present-day Hollywood, not "I am Legend".
Try "If NASA is willing to take the same risks with SpaceX that it routinely took with the Shuttle..."
The comparison in the article is a little strange, but the AC isn't worried about the comparison, they are talking about a trip to Mars justifying that risk.
There is a difference between a lawyer arguing on behalf of a criminal that their (fundamental) brain (structure) made them do it and criminals believing that their brain made them do it.
Basically, most criminals are stupid and/or lack a socially normal morality.
Save it from what? Human space flight using chemical rockets will never be anything other than a novelty and one of the largest investors in Tesla is one of the big Japanese automakers (so if Tesla 'saves' the US it will only be by handing part of it over to Toyota).
I think you are poorly estimating the motivations of many of the people that decry biological explanations for behavior. They have integrated their morality as a feature of the universe that they live in, not as a system of evaluating the actions of themselves and others (in other words, their ideas of good and bad are not in any way thoughtful, they are simply prescribed).
So concepts that undermine the idea that morality is a feature of the universe threaten their entire world view and they are not willing to use that threat as a reason to reconsider. So the idea that there is some meaningfully large body of criminal apologists is likely a fabrication, most sane people going to view the idea that there are biological explanations for behavior as a reason to modify the ways that we address antisocial behavior, not as a reason to simply accept the behavior.
Yes, a fanboy would in fact replace the screw so that he could use philips.
The primary use case of Calibre is to convert content into a format that your reader can handle.
Maybe define tiny. Military expenditures in 2010 were about $650 billion. Social Security payments were about $700 billion. So 1/2 of the military budget would seem to cover a tiny 1/2 of the social security outlay.
Linky:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_federal_budget
(I realize that the $700 billion present day outlay doesn't really speak to the future obligations, but you have the appearance of just making things up)
How is "(and as you say, why would anyone give away rights for no reason...)" related to wishful thinking?
The really weird part here is that the business entities involved here would likely be companies paying developers to work on projects external to that entity, a business entity running their own project is going to have their own lawyer-approved contribution agreement.
You are looking at the world through Bruce colored glasses.
Their use case is clearly one where the developer has a desire to contribute to the project and trusts the management of the project:
http://harmonyagreements.org/use.html
(and as you say, why would anyone give away rights for no reason...)
If you click around the EIA website, you can get a breakdown of the renewables. The growth is in ethanol, but other biomass is still the majority of it (presumably waste wood used for power generation is a big contributor, if they include firewood, it would also likely be a big contributor).
It just includes installed hydroelectric.
There ain't more big rivers.
Angry Nerds!
Can you name a similar species that is anywhere near as prolific?
Right, the problem is that they don't understand the solar cycle.
The quibble is moot, they made further changes to that section, making it quite clear. That said, I doubt they would get away with a claim like using the material in advertising was necessary.
And they do have paid users.
One of the ways that they can make their store attractive is by limiting the security issues with the software that they list.
Perhaps because sorting is somewhat obvious?
My how the fallen have fallen.
I don't know. The second sentence sure seems to limit the scope of the license quite a lot.
Nah, they just didn't come up with language to make everyone happy on their first try. They have updated it again, to the following:
publicly display that stuff to the extent reasonably necessary for the Service. This license is solely to enable us to technically administer, display, and operate the Services.
Gee, how evil.