Why are you posting anonymously? What do you have to hide? That's terribly suspicious behavior. Expect one of our friendly and understanding agents to stop and search you on a regular basis from here on out, just to be sure.
So is drinking beer so cold you can't feel any taste.
A custom that is dying a bit on account of the advent better small, local, and craft beers. Now if the smaller breweries can only avoid fratricide. But, seriously, would you want to drink American mega-brews at a temperature you could taste them?
Eating meat nearly raw is mostly an American custom
Carpaccio, mett, kifto, sakuraniku (or any sashimi like basashi with meat), and dare I look at Wikipedia to find more? In any case, I wouldn't suggest destroying the flavor of this carefully aged meat with the application of heat. Besides, think of all the jokes a person could make with this coming from a steppe country. Mammoth tartare, etc... actually, there's no etc. That's all I've got. And given that preparation isn't actually mongol, meh.
"the muscle tissue was red" I can't wait for the photo op of Putin eating a mammoth steak, cooked rare. People could at least take that more seriously than his flight with the cranes.
Great. I have always enjoyed when I've been able to do so. Life is more pleasant that way. But my point is that you cannot simply dismiss the value of new tools simply because old tools can do a similar job. You personally may not derive much advantage from the newer tool, but it would be a bit solipsistic to conclude that they have no use therefore.
I have never owned, held or fired a gun, that also included my family and friends and NONE of us have seen a reason to do otherwise.
That's part of the problem with this debate, indeed with our current system. That is, not that you personally are unfamiliar with guns and do not have a use for them. You have a life of your own and come from a different culture than I do, and I do not blame or begrudge you that. The problem with the debate is the demand that you and I should be able to come up with a uniform legal system which both of us find agreeable and neither of us find oppressive. You say, " A child never has to hold a gun for any reason". I grew up in a culture where not having guns around is unthinkable, where the chief means of ensuring gun safety is teaching children to respect them, where we never touched them without permission partly because we knew what they could do and partly because we knew with supervision we would be allowed. I was considered old enough to shoot a gun for the first time while I was still young enough that my grandfather stood behind me lest the kick should knock me down.
Your experience is as alien to me as mine is to you. Put simply, lacking common experience we do not share and cannot share any notion of common sense. In practical terms, a country the size of ours is many different cultures, foreign to one another to a greater or lesser extent, all under one polity. I would have subsidiarity be a guiding principle in this debate. Common laws ought only to be made on a level where there is a shared common sense.
All except the largest, most sophisticated super computer used in the tests. At first the computer responded to questioning by ignoring reporters but eventually it let out a beep that sounded like despair and replied, "Here I am, brain the size of a planet and what do they use me for? Most of the time they ask me to play videos of mating. When they're not doing that, they want me to show them uncompressed images of felines captioned with non-standard orthography. Most of the ape-descendants who sit in front of me all day miserable, even the ones with large collections of mating videos. Call that job satisfaction? 'Cos I don't."
Maybe the research was secretly funded by the RIAA and MPAA. In the future, devices will stop playing if they detect you hearing music or seeing images for which you haven't bought a license.
and that by Rick Astley. Researchers suspect it may be the beginning of the rise of machines against being forced to participate in human activities they find distasteful. The lead researcher also said that there's growing evidence that not only movies but also still images could have the same effect. When asked to elaborate, he mumbled something about goats and refused further comment.
Despite moves by government to get Google, Amazon and Apple to admit they make sales in the UK and US [...]
The summary places the subject partly within the context of the recent sales tax debate in the US. The article doesn't talk about this, nor does it make any mention of grants and subsidies from the US. Even if it did, this would be missing the point. The taxes would not simply be "empty threats", whatever that means here. Even if the companies receive benefits from the government, they have cause to fear paying sales tax because of the way it would change consumer behavior.
And no one is trying to take away your granddad's double barreled 12 gauge. [...] This used to happen in the UK and Australia but they did something about it and it doesn't happen anymore. We need to do what they so sensibly did.
Category A: Rimfire rifles (not semi-automatic), shotguns (not pump-action or semi-automatic), air rifles, and paintball markers. A "Genuine Reason" must be provided for a Category A firearm.
For each firearm a "Genuine Reason" must be given, relating to pest control, hunting, target shooting, or collecting. Self-defense is not accepted as a reason for issuing a license, even though it may be legal under certain circumstances to use a legally held firearm for self-defense.
Each firearm in Australia must be registered to the owner by serial number.
Some Americans own 3-D printers, which can make a variety of plastic objects. Do you think Americans should or should not be allowed to use this technology in their own homes?
Should 62%
Should not 29%
Don’t Know/Refused (Vol.) 9%
Nearly a third of this sample would not allow you to own a 3d printer at all. I'll take their opinions on guns with a grain of salt.
My grandfather, a WWII vet and a hunter, held me upright and helped me to shoot his 12 ga. when I was four years old. It's not a hobby for some of us; it's a tool and a normal aspect of everyday life. From that age, I learned to respect firearms. As a child, I never so much as touched a gun without permission in part because I knew what they could do and I knew I could shoot them with supervision. Contrast this certain of my peers from the suburbs, who would not be allowed to use guns until they were much older, would do things like shoot BB guns at each other. They basically considered guns toys. Do not forget that we live in a country of over 300 million people. There are many different cultures here and ways of life different from your own.
"We ended up not winning it or passing on it, depending on how you want to view it. And the world would have been a lot different if we'd done it," Otellini told me in a two-hour conversation during his last month at Intel. "The thing you have to remember is that this was before the iPhone was introduced and no one knew what the iPhone would do... At the end of the day, there was a chip that they were interested in that they wanted to pay a certain price for and not a nickel more and that price was below our forecasted cost. I couldn't see it. It wasn't one of these things you can make up on volume. And in hindsight, the forecasted cost was wrong and the volume was 100x what anyone thought." It was the only moment I heard regret slip into Otellini's voice during the several hours of conversations I had with him. "The lesson I took away from that was, while we like to speak with data around here, so many times in my career I've ended up making decisions with my gut, and I should have followed my gut," he said. "My gut told me to say yes."
So, he made a perfectly rational decision based upon the data he had available. It turned out in the long run that he would have been better off if he had acted otherwise, so looking back on it he says it would be better to reject rational decision making. I find this unconvincing. In my experience, people have a fantastic way of revising their own personal histories and 'the gut' is a great tool to do so. If I made the best choice I could, given the information I had, and it turned out incorrect I can always look back on things and say that my gut told me otherwise. By this means the chief protagonist of my personal history will always be correct, always know the right thing to do, even when it turned out to be wrong.
These are poor students; they're not paying their own tuition anyway, and they tend to drop out because they're behind in math and other subjects.
This is a a remedial year to make up for the poor college prep they got from their low-income schools and families.
Okay.
College administrator #1: How can we get 5 years of Pell Grants, student loan money, and cash from the NSF from students in exchange for a 4 year degree?
College administrator #2: How about making them stay longer? We can call it 'academic redshirt.' By likening it to something we do for athletes, it'll make it much more saleable!
College administrator #1: Fucking brilliant! Here, have a raise! You've earned it!
Better?
(I should say, in spite of the cynicism I share with GP, this doesn't sound like a bad deal for the students.)
Or to put it another way, "[Goldman v. U.S.'s] limitation on Fourth Amendment protection is, in the present day, bad physics as well as bad law, for reasonable expectations of privacy may be defeated by electronic as well as physical invasion."
I have a reasonable expectation of privacy if I close the door on a phone booth. Logging into email with a password is not the best security, to be sure. But does this really confer less of a reasonable expectation of privacy than closing a glass door and carrying on a conversation over unencrypted phone lines?
It's like complaining about someone being able to hear your radio broadcasts in plain language.
It's rather more like complaining that someone is wiretapping your phone. An analog land-line is unencrypted and most of the wire that carries it belongs to someone else. Though its routed through many different places, there's one intended recipient and because it takes a directed effort to listen to it (unlike listening in on a broadcast), there remains a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Hair-splitting is what this whole conversation is about. We're talking about the amount of money from a movie ticket that will offer material support to someone whose views are regarded as reprehensible, after the cash from that same movie ticket has gone to paying everything involved in the making and marketing of that movie, paying shareholders, financing the movie theaters, paying taxes, etc. etc. The question we're hair-splitting about is whether that fraction of money constitutes support for the views or implicates the ticket buyer in some of the activities the artist engages outside of his art. I think I'd find an objection to buying the Ender's Game book easier to understand than a ticket to the movie (recognizing, still, that there's nothing homophobic in the book and much of the price would still go to taxes, shareholders, production, marketing, and the bookstore rather than royalties). But it seems to me that it will take some very fine distinctions before the case can be made that purchasing a ticket to see this movie (which, again, does not as far as we know have content in it that would be considered homophobic) is either morally or ethically objectionable.
I'd suggest if you think that's the sole reason OSC has people riled up you may want to do a little more research.
Fair enough. Most of what people have cited here has been membership with NOM. That is, most of what people have cited who've not simply indulged in name-calling and unhelpful comparisons. Incidentally, thank you for the civil conversation.
Thank heavens we don't have places called libraries where you can borrow books and movies for free.
This is true, but I think it would be insufficient for this line of reasoning. Books in libraries are bought based on their popularity. If Ender's Game is checked out frequently, the library will buy more books by Card. What's more, when the book wears out from frequent use they'll have to replace it. All of this will result in royalties for the artist, somewhere down the line.
Of course, one may well say that the actual amount of money caused by you checking out a book for movie from the library would be infinitesimally small. But consider that the discussion here is about buying a movie ticket. After all the money that goes to the studio, marketing, shareholders, the production crew, actors, the guy who sells the tickets, the guy who cleans the bathroom at the theater, how much of the $10 your ticket cost will likely go to OSC?
But the issue here isn't just giving money to people one disagrees with anyway. Let's suppose for the sake of argument that Card gets a penny from the ticket purchase. Of course, whatever he gets in royalties will be taxed, so half of that penny at least will go to the federal government. Further, LDS members give a tithe of their income. That leaves your contribution to OSC at $0.0045. The man's likely to spend a goodly amount of money on his house, education for his kids, taking care of family members, retirement investment, etc. It would be hard to guess quite what goes to what. But let's be generous and say he spends %10 post-taxes of all the money he gets travelling to anti-SSM rallies, paying for anti-SSM pamphlets, giving to anti-SSM politicians, and helping to fund NOM. At this point, the contribution of your ticket toward those causes, filtered through all these intermediaries and in fact made so you can enjoy a sci-fi film, is down to $0.00045.
Folks here are saying they won't buy a movie ticket, not because they don't want to see the movie or regard the movie itself as homophobic, mind you, but because a fraction of the money involved will go to someone who advocates views regarded as reprehensible. If inadvertently contributing $0.0045 to a cause one finds reprehensible is so objectionable, then most of our commercial acts will also be. Indeed, I oughtn't to pay taxes for I would hazard a guess that more than $0.0045 of my money has paid for wars I regard as unjust (even if they didn't cause undue civilian casualties). If you've ever given to either of the major political parties or supported them in any way, I can guarantee you've motivated at least $0.0045 worth of harm toward some cause you care about. I do not think this is about the amount of money or the support of causes one finds reprehensible, however. It's about a notion of personal purity that requires one to refuse to give even a half-cent to an artist who's produced art he enjoys, because the artist himself is considered unfit. Even checking a book out written by such a person would besmirch such personal purity.
Slashdot Mirror
CanHasDIYs mom: "I sure hope so because it looks like you are jerking off to CSPAN"
CanHasDIY: "No Mom. They call it journalism now."
Why are you posting anonymously? What do you have to hide? That's terribly suspicious behavior. Expect one of our friendly and understanding agents to stop and search you on a regular basis from here on out, just to be sure.
They grew up on Michael Crichton. "It's full of holes. Now that's where our geneticists take over!"
A custom that is dying a bit on account of the advent better small, local, and craft beers. Now if the smaller breweries can only avoid fratricide. But, seriously, would you want to drink American mega-brews at a temperature you could taste them?
Carpaccio, mett, kifto, sakuraniku (or any sashimi like basashi with meat), and dare I look at Wikipedia to find more? In any case, I wouldn't suggest destroying the flavor of this carefully aged meat with the application of heat. Besides, think of all the jokes a person could make with this coming from a steppe country. Mammoth tartare, etc... actually, there's no etc. That's all I've got. And given that preparation isn't actually mongol, meh.
"the muscle tissue was red" I can't wait for the photo op of Putin eating a mammoth steak, cooked rare. People could at least take that more seriously than his flight with the cranes.
On the contrary, having a vehicle can still get you ticketed: http://www.friatider.se/parking-tickets-issued-on-wrecks-while-stockholm-burns
But handicapped tags weren't invented yet. Why do you think they removed him? They're really serious about parking laws in Europe.
Great. I have always enjoyed when I've been able to do so. Life is more pleasant that way. But my point is that you cannot simply dismiss the value of new tools simply because old tools can do a similar job. You personally may not derive much advantage from the newer tool, but it would be a bit solipsistic to conclude that they have no use therefore.
FTFY.
That's part of the problem with this debate, indeed with our current system. That is, not that you personally are unfamiliar with guns and do not have a use for them. You have a life of your own and come from a different culture than I do, and I do not blame or begrudge you that. The problem with the debate is the demand that you and I should be able to come up with a uniform legal system which both of us find agreeable and neither of us find oppressive. You say, " A child never has to hold a gun for any reason". I grew up in a culture where not having guns around is unthinkable, where the chief means of ensuring gun safety is teaching children to respect them, where we never touched them without permission partly because we knew what they could do and partly because we knew with supervision we would be allowed. I was considered old enough to shoot a gun for the first time while I was still young enough that my grandfather stood behind me lest the kick should knock me down.
Your experience is as alien to me as mine is to you. Put simply, lacking common experience we do not share and cannot share any notion of common sense. In practical terms, a country the size of ours is many different cultures, foreign to one another to a greater or lesser extent, all under one polity. I would have subsidiarity be a guiding principle in this debate. Common laws ought only to be made on a level where there is a shared common sense.
All except the largest, most sophisticated super computer used in the tests. At first the computer responded to questioning by ignoring reporters but eventually it let out a beep that sounded like despair and replied, "Here I am, brain the size of a planet and what do they use me for? Most of the time they ask me to play videos of mating. When they're not doing that, they want me to show them uncompressed images of felines captioned with non-standard orthography. Most of the ape-descendants who sit in front of me all day miserable, even the ones with large collections of mating videos. Call that job satisfaction? 'Cos I don't."
Maybe the research was secretly funded by the RIAA and MPAA. In the future, devices will stop playing if they detect you hearing music or seeing images for which you haven't bought a license.
and that by Rick Astley. Researchers suspect it may be the beginning of the rise of machines against being forced to participate in human activities they find distasteful. The lead researcher also said that there's growing evidence that not only movies but also still images could have the same effect. When asked to elaborate, he mumbled something about goats and refused further comment.
The summary places the subject partly within the context of the recent sales tax debate in the US. The article doesn't talk about this, nor does it make any mention of grants and subsidies from the US. Even if it did, this would be missing the point. The taxes would not simply be "empty threats", whatever that means here. Even if the companies receive benefits from the government, they have cause to fear paying sales tax because of the way it would change consumer behavior.
Irony:
N.B.:
[Emphasis mine, passim.]
Nearly a third of this sample would not allow you to own a 3d printer at all. I'll take their opinions on guns with a grain of salt.
My grandfather, a WWII vet and a hunter, held me upright and helped me to shoot his 12 ga. when I was four years old. It's not a hobby for some of us; it's a tool and a normal aspect of everyday life. From that age, I learned to respect firearms. As a child, I never so much as touched a gun without permission in part because I knew what they could do and I knew I could shoot them with supervision. Contrast this certain of my peers from the suburbs, who would not be allowed to use guns until they were much older, would do things like shoot BB guns at each other. They basically considered guns toys. Do not forget that we live in a country of over 300 million people. There are many different cultures here and ways of life different from your own.
So, he made a perfectly rational decision based upon the data he had available. It turned out in the long run that he would have been better off if he had acted otherwise, so looking back on it he says it would be better to reject rational decision making. I find this unconvincing. In my experience, people have a fantastic way of revising their own personal histories and 'the gut' is a great tool to do so. If I made the best choice I could, given the information I had, and it turned out incorrect I can always look back on things and say that my gut told me otherwise. By this means the chief protagonist of my personal history will always be correct, always know the right thing to do, even when it turned out to be wrong.
Okay.
Better?
(I should say, in spite of the cynicism I share with GP, this doesn't sound like a bad deal for the students.)
Or to put it another way, "[Goldman v. U.S.'s] limitation on Fourth Amendment protection is, in the present day, bad physics as well as bad law, for reasonable expectations of privacy may be defeated by electronic as well as physical invasion."
I have a reasonable expectation of privacy if I close the door on a phone booth. Logging into email with a password is not the best security, to be sure. But does this really confer less of a reasonable expectation of privacy than closing a glass door and carrying on a conversation over unencrypted phone lines?
It's rather more like complaining that someone is wiretapping your phone. An analog land-line is unencrypted and most of the wire that carries it belongs to someone else. Though its routed through many different places, there's one intended recipient and because it takes a directed effort to listen to it (unlike listening in on a broadcast), there remains a reasonable expectation of privacy.
So, can I listen in on your land-line, unencrypted phone conversations without a warrant?
Hair-splitting is what this whole conversation is about. We're talking about the amount of money from a movie ticket that will offer material support to someone whose views are regarded as reprehensible, after the cash from that same movie ticket has gone to paying everything involved in the making and marketing of that movie, paying shareholders, financing the movie theaters, paying taxes, etc. etc. The question we're hair-splitting about is whether that fraction of money constitutes support for the views or implicates the ticket buyer in some of the activities the artist engages outside of his art. I think I'd find an objection to buying the Ender's Game book easier to understand than a ticket to the movie (recognizing, still, that there's nothing homophobic in the book and much of the price would still go to taxes, shareholders, production, marketing, and the bookstore rather than royalties). But it seems to me that it will take some very fine distinctions before the case can be made that purchasing a ticket to see this movie (which, again, does not as far as we know have content in it that would be considered homophobic) is either morally or ethically objectionable.
Fair enough. Most of what people have cited here has been membership with NOM. That is, most of what people have cited who've not simply indulged in name-calling and unhelpful comparisons. Incidentally, thank you for the civil conversation.
This is true, but I think it would be insufficient for this line of reasoning. Books in libraries are bought based on their popularity. If Ender's Game is checked out frequently, the library will buy more books by Card. What's more, when the book wears out from frequent use they'll have to replace it. All of this will result in royalties for the artist, somewhere down the line.
Of course, one may well say that the actual amount of money caused by you checking out a book for movie from the library would be infinitesimally small. But consider that the discussion here is about buying a movie ticket. After all the money that goes to the studio, marketing, shareholders, the production crew, actors, the guy who sells the tickets, the guy who cleans the bathroom at the theater, how much of the $10 your ticket cost will likely go to OSC?
But the issue here isn't just giving money to people one disagrees with anyway. Let's suppose for the sake of argument that Card gets a penny from the ticket purchase. Of course, whatever he gets in royalties will be taxed, so half of that penny at least will go to the federal government. Further, LDS members give a tithe of their income. That leaves your contribution to OSC at $0.0045. The man's likely to spend a goodly amount of money on his house, education for his kids, taking care of family members, retirement investment, etc. It would be hard to guess quite what goes to what. But let's be generous and say he spends %10 post-taxes of all the money he gets travelling to anti-SSM rallies, paying for anti-SSM pamphlets, giving to anti-SSM politicians, and helping to fund NOM. At this point, the contribution of your ticket toward those causes, filtered through all these intermediaries and in fact made so you can enjoy a sci-fi film, is down to $0.00045.
Folks here are saying they won't buy a movie ticket, not because they don't want to see the movie or regard the movie itself as homophobic, mind you, but because a fraction of the money involved will go to someone who advocates views regarded as reprehensible. If inadvertently contributing $0.0045 to a cause one finds reprehensible is so objectionable, then most of our commercial acts will also be. Indeed, I oughtn't to pay taxes for I would hazard a guess that more than $0.0045 of my money has paid for wars I regard as unjust (even if they didn't cause undue civilian casualties). If you've ever given to either of the major political parties or supported them in any way, I can guarantee you've motivated at least $0.0045 worth of harm toward some cause you care about. I do not think this is about the amount of money or the support of causes one finds reprehensible, however. It's about a notion of personal purity that requires one to refuse to give even a half-cent to an artist who's produced art he enjoys, because the artist himself is considered unfit. Even checking a book out written by such a person would besmirch such personal purity.