Did you read the article you linked? Or even that single sentence that you quoted? The NDAA does not apply to Americans.
Are you criticizing the NDAA because it did not include special provisions to protect Americans from other laws? That doesn't seem reasonable. Certainly the NDAA is bad - I think that the president should have line-item vetoed the whole section about indefinite detention, but he's got this whole thing about "following the legislative process" and "not abusing power." Sissy.
I know very little about metal working, but it seems to me that when you have the capability to do something unique it would be foolish to give up that ability. Even if a new process comes along that is faster and cheaper for most purposes.
This is certainly true: traditional farms had animals because they were a practical means of generating additional food. Cows eat grasses, as you say, pigs eat organic waste (table scraps), chickens eat bugs which are all over the place on a farm. Because these animals fit so well into the working of traditional farm in a temperate climate, they're the ones that we associate with food here in North America.
What you (or the GGP) are glossing over is the fact that this only works if the animals represent a tiny portion of the total food produced on the farm. It used to be that people would only eat a significant amount of meat for, at most, one meal each week. (This is that chicken in every pot on Sunday business.) There's no way to produce even a fraction of the beef consumed daily in the United States without using up land that would otherwise go to producing food (in much larger quantities) for humans.
You are the reason people push back and you provide the fodder needed for people to say AGW is all about Control.
This is the only sensible thing you wrote there. Yes, addressing climate change in a real way is ultimately going to effect the way that people live and that will invariably make some people leap back and say, "Sure I'm all for making the world better, but not if it means I have to do anything." This is why every approach to the problem that has gained any traction so far has been limp-wristed drivel.
But then you identify yourself as one of those people, claiming that climate change is just an excuse to screw with others... Look, GP gives some cogent arguments for his suggestions. If you're unhappy with them you could respond with something like, "I think the idea of reducing urban sprawl is bad because:"
What I'm saying is, screaming "Conspiracy!" is not a conversation.
He said replaced, he didn't say this is the only reason why internet gaming exists. The point is that a number of prominent games have removed the ability to play in a LAN - a feature previously ubiquitous in PC gaming for anything that allowed multiplayer.
The reason why they've done this has, I think, a little more to it than just DRM. Blizzard, for example, is trying to turn Diablo 3 into a continuous cash stream and by all appearances are likely to succeed, and they can't do that if people are free to play their game how they like. (And all the copycats will drive gaming even further into the dirt. But that's getting off topic.)
How does one tell the difference between consensual sex with an animal, and animal rape? After the fact, and with no evidence that it wasn't consensual?
It's certainly a very difficult thing to argue legally, one way or the other. Until recently it was legal in the Netherlands unless animal suffering was involved (I think that just means injury, but I'm not a lawyer). You could also make the argument that a dog, for example, which had been raised to preform sex acts for its owner is a victim even though it may give every indication of enjoying these acts, because the dog had never really been given the opportunity to make a choice on the matter. Much like someone suffering from stockholm syndrome.
However, the legal implications of acting on your desires, which are complex, are not what we were discussing.
what makes prefering same sex pairings more 'normal' than someone who prefers children?
I guess it's that most same sex pairings are between consenting adults, whereas children often are not able to give consent for such things.
He said preferring, not executing. There certainly is a societal problem with non-consensual sex. Wanting non-consensual sex however, is purely a personal problem. As is wanting anything that you can't have.
I don't know what this "line in sand" is that he's talking about though. I'm pretty liberal and would happily defend homosexuals, pedophiles, necrophiles, zoophiles, polygamists... almost any others that you could name. But not rapists. Is that my line? Rape? I don't anticipate getting in trouble for that.
(Don't think this is a free pass for you zoophiles - I'm not okay with animal rape either.)
One side sees this primarily as a scientific question to be resolved through inquiry and research... the other views it primarily as a political problem to be resolved through rhetoric and propaganda.
The problem is that this isn't true anymore. The science is pretty much settled, so it's all political now and scientists generally suck at that.
And yes, they do need to prove deniers crazy. Or at least convince the majority of people that this is the case. It's the only way to get anything done when there's this much money working in opposition.
Four times the viewership of CNN, and more than every other news channel combined. The irony is that they use the term "mainstream media" as though they were talking about someone else.
Governments forget why they exist - they are collective entities, not competitive ones. When the people running things disregard that and start treating their municipality or county or state as though it were a business and not a government, we all lose.
You're taking a specific statement "Our local government is incompetent" and turning it into a generalization "No government deserves money." Then you go on to acknowledge that government has legitimate functions, functions which cost money.
Let me ask you this: how does withholding money from the government improve its function? We can agree that wasting money is bad, but what it looks like you're saying is that we need to starve the government of resources and this doesn't seem like a solution to the problem.
If he should pay more taxes, and doesn't.. it hurts his argument severely to spend a lot of money on tax accountants to pay less in taxes.
Warren Buffet is rich and has complicated income. I'm certain that he pays accountants quite a lot to work out what he owes irrespective of how much he may wish to pay.
In my opinion there's tremendous difference between someone who takes the deductions offered to them, and someone who sets up a shell company explicitly to dodge taxes.
Having considered the matter carefully, I've come to the conclusion that a person who has dedicated a large portion of their lives to the study of climate effects knows more about the subject than I do. In fact, on further reflection, I may have to admit that I am no longer an expert on everything in the way that I was during my teenage years.
You're omitting a valid (even if imperfect) solution that may help stave off tragedy if people choose a particular path in order to defend and mandate that your "morally superior path" is the only option presented.
Nonsense, there's nothing about morals here. They're saying that if someone published a paper claiming that it maybe could be possible to address the problem with magical future technology then people would cling to that idea and declare that addressing the problem now isn't necessary.
If that hypothetical technology failed to materialize (as the vast majority of speculative technologies fail to do) then we'd be up shit creek.
Perhaps more effort should be made to make sure certain immigrants know that around these here parts, we appreciate our daughters.
The common method to legislate a societally damaging imbalance is to provide a tax incentive. In fact, the Canadian government already does this - giving people tax breaks and rather generous benefits for doing nothing more than having children. Just tweak it to give a little extra for having girls.
Okay... so if I'm reading you correctly you're saying that we need to give up our right to anonymous travel because it makes it easier for airlines to spot people who buy tickets and then return them.
That's a legitimate gripe, to be sure, but it seems like there are other ways it could be prevented. For example, it used to be that you didn't need a boarding pass to get through security - anyone could go through to see off their significant others without buying, and then returning, a ticket as long as they didn't bring any weapons with them. No ID required. In this scenario everyone seems to be getting what they want and no one is being defrauded or denied the right to travel without being tracked.
Gap in what, exactly? The method you give could be used to defraud the airline, getting on an expensive flight for the cost of a cheap one. Protecting against this means verifying the boarding pass though, it has nothing to do with the identity of the customer.
Can you describe a situation where knowing the identity of the person flying would be important? I reckon they exist, I just can't think of any.
Given that you're already ID'd when you get your boarding pass this isn't a new outrage, I don't see this as positive news though. It's a reminder that we seem to have permanently ceded our right to travel anonymously, and put up hardly any fuss about it in the process.
What? Historical perspective is all well and good, but history doesn't change from person to person. I don't think I'm following this conversation anymore.
Clinton and Chavez are not good examples of leaders which came to power after revolutions because they did not come to power after revolutions. That's all there is to it. Don't get all metaphysical on me, it doesn't have to be any more complicated than that.
Mao is too old to be relevant? He only died in '76, that's not that long ago.
Clinton and Chavez are better examples of what you get from a revolution? Did you think this through? They were both elected. Chavez staged a failed coup, but was democratically elected afterwards.
No, this is all backwards. It is entirely within the purview of society to prevent murder, even if the person doing the murder believes it to be okay. It's not acceptable to say that murder is choice that people should be able to make.
Honestly, I think this is a large part of what creates the disconnect between the pro and anti abortion groups. The anti group sees a thing as murder and protests against it, as one might expect - very few people support murder. Meanwhile, for the pro group the murder argument doesn't even register. There's no significant difference between a fertilized egg and an unfertilized one, after all, certainly not enough to treat it as though it were a human. So they make the freedom argument, because that's what they see as important, but it does nothing to counter the murder argument that the anti group is making. They're just arguing past one another.
The second problem is that once you start asking "What is a human?" religion inevitably has an opinion and so ends the arguable portion of the debate. You can't argue with religion, not accepting dogma means lack of faith.
I don't see how this is quite a bit different. If it's legal for me to record something on my VCR, and it's legal for my butler to press the button for me, and it's legal for my butler to press the button and mail it to me when I'm off doing super important business stuff, then how is hiring a butler company which specializes in VCRs any different?
Slashdot Mirror
Did you read the article you linked? Or even that single sentence that you quoted? The NDAA does not apply to Americans.
Are you criticizing the NDAA because it did not include special provisions to protect Americans from other laws? That doesn't seem reasonable. Certainly the NDAA is bad - I think that the president should have line-item vetoed the whole section about indefinite detention, but he's got this whole thing about "following the legislative process" and "not abusing power." Sissy.
I know very little about metal working, but it seems to me that when you have the capability to do something unique it would be foolish to give up that ability. Even if a new process comes along that is faster and cheaper for most purposes.
This is certainly true: traditional farms had animals because they were a practical means of generating additional food. Cows eat grasses, as you say, pigs eat organic waste (table scraps), chickens eat bugs which are all over the place on a farm. Because these animals fit so well into the working of traditional farm in a temperate climate, they're the ones that we associate with food here in North America.
What you (or the GGP) are glossing over is the fact that this only works if the animals represent a tiny portion of the total food produced on the farm. It used to be that people would only eat a significant amount of meat for, at most, one meal each week. (This is that chicken in every pot on Sunday business.) There's no way to produce even a fraction of the beef consumed daily in the United States without using up land that would otherwise go to producing food (in much larger quantities) for humans.
You are the reason people push back and you provide the fodder needed for people to say AGW is all about Control.
This is the only sensible thing you wrote there. Yes, addressing climate change in a real way is ultimately going to effect the way that people live and that will invariably make some people leap back and say, "Sure I'm all for making the world better, but not if it means I have to do anything." This is why every approach to the problem that has gained any traction so far has been limp-wristed drivel.
But then you identify yourself as one of those people, claiming that climate change is just an excuse to screw with others... Look, GP gives some cogent arguments for his suggestions. If you're unhappy with them you could respond with something like, "I think the idea of reducing urban sprawl is bad because:"
What I'm saying is, screaming "Conspiracy!" is not a conversation.
He said replaced, he didn't say this is the only reason why internet gaming exists. The point is that a number of prominent games have removed the ability to play in a LAN - a feature previously ubiquitous in PC gaming for anything that allowed multiplayer.
The reason why they've done this has, I think, a little more to it than just DRM. Blizzard, for example, is trying to turn Diablo 3 into a continuous cash stream and by all appearances are likely to succeed, and they can't do that if people are free to play their game how they like. (And all the copycats will drive gaming even further into the dirt. But that's getting off topic.)
How does one tell the difference between consensual sex with an animal, and animal rape? After the fact, and with no evidence that it wasn't consensual?
It's certainly a very difficult thing to argue legally, one way or the other. Until recently it was legal in the Netherlands unless animal suffering was involved (I think that just means injury, but I'm not a lawyer). You could also make the argument that a dog, for example, which had been raised to preform sex acts for its owner is a victim even though it may give every indication of enjoying these acts, because the dog had never really been given the opportunity to make a choice on the matter. Much like someone suffering from stockholm syndrome.
However, the legal implications of acting on your desires, which are complex, are not what we were discussing.
what makes prefering same sex pairings more 'normal' than someone who prefers children?
I guess it's that most same sex pairings are between consenting adults, whereas children often are not able to give consent for such things.
He said preferring, not executing. There certainly is a societal problem with non-consensual sex. Wanting non-consensual sex however, is purely a personal problem. As is wanting anything that you can't have.
I don't know what this "line in sand" is that he's talking about though. I'm pretty liberal and would happily defend homosexuals, pedophiles, necrophiles, zoophiles, polygamists... almost any others that you could name. But not rapists. Is that my line? Rape? I don't anticipate getting in trouble for that.
(Don't think this is a free pass for you zoophiles - I'm not okay with animal rape either.)
One side sees this primarily as a scientific question to be resolved through inquiry and research... the other views it primarily as a political problem to be resolved through rhetoric and propaganda.
The problem is that this isn't true anymore. The science is pretty much settled, so it's all political now and scientists generally suck at that.
And yes, they do need to prove deniers crazy. Or at least convince the majority of people that this is the case. It's the only way to get anything done when there's this much money working in opposition.
It's not just pretty big, Fox is the largest news channel by a wide margin:
http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2012/05/04/cable-news-ratings-for-thursday-may-3-2012/132406/
Four times the viewership of CNN, and more than every other news channel combined. The irony is that they use the term "mainstream media" as though they were talking about someone else.
That's well said. I'm not a fan of Ron Paul, but he certainly does get some things right.
Governments forget why they exist - they are collective entities, not competitive ones. When the people running things disregard that and start treating their municipality or county or state as though it were a business and not a government, we all lose.
You're taking a specific statement "Our local government is incompetent" and turning it into a generalization "No government deserves money." Then you go on to acknowledge that government has legitimate functions, functions which cost money.
Let me ask you this: how does withholding money from the government improve its function? We can agree that wasting money is bad, but what it looks like you're saying is that we need to starve the government of resources and this doesn't seem like a solution to the problem.
If he should pay more taxes, and doesn't.. it hurts his argument severely to spend a lot of money on tax accountants to pay less in taxes.
Warren Buffet is rich and has complicated income. I'm certain that he pays accountants quite a lot to work out what he owes irrespective of how much he may wish to pay.
In my opinion there's tremendous difference between someone who takes the deductions offered to them, and someone who sets up a shell company explicitly to dodge taxes.
Having considered the matter carefully, I've come to the conclusion that a person who has dedicated a large portion of their lives to the study of climate effects knows more about the subject than I do. In fact, on further reflection, I may have to admit that I am no longer an expert on everything in the way that I was during my teenage years.
- a (former) convenience store clerk
You're omitting a valid (even if imperfect) solution that may help stave off tragedy if people choose a particular path in order to defend and mandate that your "morally superior path" is the only option presented.
Nonsense, there's nothing about morals here. They're saying that if someone published a paper claiming that it maybe could be possible to address the problem with magical future technology then people would cling to that idea and declare that addressing the problem now isn't necessary.
If that hypothetical technology failed to materialize (as the vast majority of speculative technologies fail to do) then we'd be up shit creek.
Perhaps more effort should be made to make sure certain immigrants know that around these here parts, we appreciate our daughters.
The common method to legislate a societally damaging imbalance is to provide a tax incentive. In fact, the Canadian government already does this - giving people tax breaks and rather generous benefits for doing nothing more than having children. Just tweak it to give a little extra for having girls.
A Ford Econoline (typical van) is 236 cubic feet, but there's an extended version and other models get larger.
As for your list... sure, whatever.
Okay... so if I'm reading you correctly you're saying that we need to give up our right to anonymous travel because it makes it easier for airlines to spot people who buy tickets and then return them.
That's a legitimate gripe, to be sure, but it seems like there are other ways it could be prevented. For example, it used to be that you didn't need a boarding pass to get through security - anyone could go through to see off their significant others without buying, and then returning, a ticket as long as they didn't bring any weapons with them. No ID required. In this scenario everyone seems to be getting what they want and no one is being defrauded or denied the right to travel without being tracked.
Gap in what, exactly? The method you give could be used to defraud the airline, getting on an expensive flight for the cost of a cheap one. Protecting against this means verifying the boarding pass though, it has nothing to do with the identity of the customer.
Can you describe a situation where knowing the identity of the person flying would be important? I reckon they exist, I just can't think of any.
Given that you're already ID'd when you get your boarding pass this isn't a new outrage, I don't see this as positive news though. It's a reminder that we seem to have permanently ceded our right to travel anonymously, and put up hardly any fuss about it in the process.
What? Historical perspective is all well and good, but history doesn't change from person to person. I don't think I'm following this conversation anymore.
Clinton and Chavez are not good examples of leaders which came to power after revolutions because they did not come to power after revolutions. That's all there is to it. Don't get all metaphysical on me, it doesn't have to be any more complicated than that.
Mao is too old to be relevant? He only died in '76, that's not that long ago.
Clinton and Chavez are better examples of what you get from a revolution? Did you think this through? They were both elected. Chavez staged a failed coup, but was democratically elected afterwards.
Why was this modded up?
There is practically no webcomic author that sues his or her customers
Not a good example of a business model based on goodwill, given that webcomics are monetized (they make money from advertisements).
No, this is all backwards. It is entirely within the purview of society to prevent murder, even if the person doing the murder believes it to be okay. It's not acceptable to say that murder is choice that people should be able to make.
Honestly, I think this is a large part of what creates the disconnect between the pro and anti abortion groups. The anti group sees a thing as murder and protests against it, as one might expect - very few people support murder. Meanwhile, for the pro group the murder argument doesn't even register. There's no significant difference between a fertilized egg and an unfertilized one, after all, certainly not enough to treat it as though it were a human. So they make the freedom argument, because that's what they see as important, but it does nothing to counter the murder argument that the anti group is making. They're just arguing past one another.
The second problem is that once you start asking "What is a human?" religion inevitably has an opinion and so ends the arguable portion of the debate. You can't argue with religion, not accepting dogma means lack of faith.
I don't see how this is quite a bit different. If it's legal for me to record something on my VCR, and it's legal for my butler to press the button for me, and it's legal for my butler to press the button and mail it to me when I'm off doing super important business stuff, then how is hiring a butler company which specializes in VCRs any different?