A firearm may have ben purchased legal at some point, but there was a very good chance it was stolen at some point too.
Instead of stricter gun controls, why don't we try something that hasn't been tried, but a variant has. We increased laws for those crimes that occurred with the use of a gun, assault becomes aggravated assault, robbery becomes armed robbery, etc. This is fine for going after the crime, but doesn’t stop the firearms from getting into the black market. So why not increase the penalties for possessing a stolen firearm, and even better for just stealing one. Say theft of a fire arm or possession of a stolen one, is minimum 20 years in prison served consecutively to any other conviction.
This way we triy to make it more painfull for the people who steal guns to sell them rather then for just the people who buy them and use them.
The first clause does mean something in regards to the last two clauses, but probalbly not what most people think. Most people read "well regulated" and think, "Army" and if not army, then iether Reserve or National Guard, and all that organization carries with it. The Guard and Reserve are both trained and equiped by the Federal governement and are trainined and equiped to be pretty compatable with the regular Army itself, in general. All are issued equipment and go through boot camp to learn to use, maintain and fire that equipment among other things.
In a militia, members normally equipe and train themselves as individuals and small units. This being the case, well regulated takes on a differnt meaning, it means moving towards a normalized state within the militia, but not necessarilly standardization. It is something as simple as; having a long gun, having ammunition for it, having a sufficient quantity of that ammunition, having magazines for it, knowing how to clean and maintain it, knowing how to fire it accurately and otherwise how to operate it, for example. For the militia, there is no bootcamp, these all are things a civillian can do and learn on thier own and can do if there is no organized miltia at the time.
So that you don't have a group of 50 people; 19 with rifles, some with a single magazine for their AR15s. 15 people with pistols and 9 with various types of shotguns, and between 6 and 500 rounds each. The guy with 500 rounds is shooting a.22LR, so he can at least share ammo with the 3 people with.22 rifles. Then there are another 4 with bows, 2 with crossbows and 1 guy with a blowgun. Well regulated at least means There would be 50 people with rifles, and 250 rounds each, even if they weren't all.223, but a mix of.223,.308, 30-06 and other calibers.
The original WANT is for on-call schedules. The ISSUE is that some idiot plugged his own server into the network and wants to allow access to it from the outside world.
The NEEDS are probably why IT doesn't have the time to jump at this request.
This was denied by the president of IMAX this morning on CNBC or Fox news. He was asked directly about this and responded that this was only an internet rumor.
You could use Domainmonger.com. It has a service called DNS Plus, at no additonal cost then your registration. One function of the service is to set up mail forwarding. This is great if you just want to use a domain for email.
You define the email address then the email account where the mail should be forwarded too.
I think you can set up upto 20 email account per domain. You can even configure the service not to forward.
If you use Gmail you can set up Gmail so that you can reply with the account name that is forwarded. Then no one knows you were in Gmail, no additional cost and you get POP and IMAP access.
"The music industry owns the music it produces. It can set the price for that music at whatever level it wants. You must decided if that price is reasonable enough for you to purchase it (including all possible future costs). If it is then buy it, if not then look for alternative music sources."
The INDUSTRY doesn't own all the music. Indivdual entities (artists or record companies) that make up the INDUSTRY, own some music each. any OWNER can set the price for the music that THEY own, not what someone else owns. Warner Brothers shouldn't be setting the price for the Music Sony owns. This isn't about BUYING any way.
This is about LICENSING fees. How much it costs to play music over the Internet, even if you have already PURCHASED the music. Went to the store and bought the CD.
The GOVERNMENT is setting the COST to play the music over the internet. You can get a LICENSE from an OWNER to pay an amount that you both agree to to play the music they own. When no such LICENSE is in place between the music OWNER and the player, the GOVERNMENT rate is in effect.
"Why do webcasters have ANY say in what the RIAA charges for allowing them to broadcast their music?"
They don't. But this isn't the RIAA charging, It's the government setting the default rate. Not the rate the RIAA is charging. The RIAA is an industry repesentation organization, not the owners in the first place anyway. Those are the record companies and the artists. So the RIAA lobbies the government on behalf of the record companies.
"If they think it is too much, then why not play music from another group that is more affordable?"
There is no lower rate in the absence of an express license agreement. There is no "other group", there must be another agreement. Now imagine everyone who wants to webcast trying to negotiate a seperate lower rate with each group/record compnay/artist etc. Now theres no music because everyone's busy negotiating or the cost of a CD goes through the roof to employ all the people to negotiate. Then there are no webcasters cause they are trying to negotiate and not webcast. Or they cant' afford the rates 'cause the cost went through the roof so the lowest negotiated rate is still higher then the default rate.
"How is this any different than somebody deciding to sell Ford cars and then complaining that Ford won't give them the cars to sell for $1 each?"
Sorry miss whatever this means. If you did buy a car from Ford, you could use the car to make money without having to pay more to Ford for using the car for that purpose though.
"If somebody owns something, then they can charge whatever they want to allow other people to use it. If you think that the charge is too much for the product, then DON'T BUY IT!"
True, they can, no problem. But how many things do you buy that you can't use in any way you want after you've purchased it free and clear. How many things do you buy that you will have to pay more for after you've bought it, without any increase in value above what you orignally purchased it with? "Hi. we're from Ford, you bought this car from us 6 months ago, it now costs $3K more and we want our money."
Under the War Powers Act the sixty day rule is correct. Congress passed a specific resolution shortly after Sept 11 concerning this and it leaves an opened ended time frame. This legislation was the closest thing to a
Declaration of War and the probably won't be one under the current situation
"But there is a new reality in the post-World Trade Center world..."
No there isn't. Somebody just demonstrated what others had been saying for years. There ain't nothing new other then the fact it dawned on you it could be done. The reality is the same, just like the likelyhood of a bioogical attack is the
same as it was last week, It's not a question of "if" but "when".
"But the terrorist attack has changed the entire context of these discussions, putting the issues far beyond knee-jerk reflexes"
No it hasn't, some folks have been considering this for a long time already, all that's
changed is that it's been brought into horrible reality for those who didn't think that way.
All we have seen up until this point is knee jerk reactions, Finally some folks are starting to come down and rethink some of the things that have been said in the last week. You aren't one of those folks yet. Understandable and completely reasonable, just let cooler heads prevail right now.
"But there is also something reflexively knee-jerk in the automatic 'they-are-taking-our-freedoms-away' response from certain quarters online
Maybe that is because the realize that much of this is completely emotional response durring
a very emotionally charged time and that we don't have a good record for making decisions
at times like this. They also realize that it's a very focused reaction right no and that the
full implications of what is being discussed isn't being considered.
"But it needs -- deserves -- to be rationally and openly considered."
So let the rational do it, if it's an emotional discussion because of the tragidies, the same emotiotons will run as high onthe other side and it simply turns into an expression of emotion about the tragidies by people taking opposing sides on an issue.
"The thousands of dead and millions of others who work in vulnerable office towers,
or travel or study or live near airports (or schools, or ports, or national symbols)
have rights too, and they have been grievously violated. have rights too, and they
have been grievously violated."
Yes, and they have duties too, and those have been horribly failed.
"The government has an obligation to protect them."
There is a limit to what any govenrment can do here, There is an obligation for the individual to be responsible for thier own saftey and the safety of others.
"...while most Americans shrug it off as a new convenience."
Until someone figures out a way to get a hold of that data and start performing terrorists acts with it. Then there will be a New hue and Cry and people will be just as suprised and realizing the same things and saying very similar things to what you are saying now; "... there is a new reality in the..." There won't be one then either, just a new shock for those who got caught like you did this time.
Maybe the next terrorist attack won't be a nuke in London, Tokyo, Cairo, Chicago or a biological weapon in Tel Aviv, Stockholm, Moscow or San Fransisco. it might be getting access to the Fed's store of Backdoor entry systems into crypto and destroying or altering that so that they don't work or work incorrectly.
"The failure to do that last week occurred primarily, many terrorism experts say,
because our existing intelligence institutions don't have the human resources, the technology or the laws to keep up with a sophisticated, well-funded, technologically-savvy network of murderous enemies"
Why not handle the first two before playing with the laws? Fix the Human resource and technology problems, before changing the laws?
"We might want to ponder what rights we owe the living and owed the dead..."
We also might want to ponder what the dead had, that the died because they had and that stepping back from those is a terrible offense against them. We should work harder and smarter to protect what we had, not back away in fear. Since fear is whata terrorist wants, that would be a victory for them.
The Download cypto option is gone because you no longer need to go to a server outside the US to get decent drypto. Mandrake includes it on the CDs now. Export restrictions have been lifted.:)
I did read your post, several times, and at no point did you say "peer reviewed journals". You did say "history". Should I make a note that these are now synonyms?
OK that's your definition of facts. Mine is facts ARE a subclass observable phenomena, for common use they are the observed subclass, The unobserved are still facts by definition, the observable portion has not been completed. Propositions and statements are just that, propositions and statements, they might describe a fact or refer to a fact, but are not "facts".
In the defintion I am using a fact may not make a claim of truth, they must be true. A "claim" of truth is not truth, and allows for the possibility that the fact is false and therefore not a fact.
Again with the dependency on some form of Human acceptance, relying on some form of perception. Since your definition allows for the posibility of falsehood in your "facts" it now becomes needed. Mine still doesn't.
"The earth turns around the sun" IS a statement. It DOES refer to an observable phenomena. There is an IMPLIED claim of it being HONEST. It IS commonly accepted to be correct.
"In addition, facts differ from theories: theories also make truth claims about phenomena, but they are recognized only as potentially true by the relavant authorities."
You are now agreeing with me on theories? What happened to the asertion that nothing can operate under this condition, where it only introduces uncertainty? This is what I've said, a theory isn't a fact because it can be false or wrong. The empirical evidence, the facts, do not make it a fact.
"The difference is a matter of degree only."
A degree is more then enough. The difference between being alive and dead is only a heartbeat.
I don't claim that reality independent of our awareness is the product of our history, but that the facts, as...
Ok, so replace "fact" with statement and we'll all be happy. I can discuss the "statement" but not the "fact". A fact implies a certainty which is more then a "claim" can justify. The certainty that is implied with "fact", I call confidence. The "truth" of the "claim", I'll call honesty.
The Rosetta Stone of a discourse, cool.
"It assumes that the evidence observed is of a different order than the theories supported by the
evidence."
ARGH!! I though we just agreed on this. It IS a different order, by that "degree" you mentioned, the "potentialy true" as opposed being "True".
"Evidence is provided by measuring instruments
and measuring instruments are only trustworthy because of the acceptability of the theories that explain them"
Yes.
"Thus, almost all scientific evidence is not factual by your definition, because it depends on the validity of theories that, as you
said, cannot be proven( though this evidence is factual according to my definition.)"
The results of experimentaion are facts, the intepretations of them are not. When someone comes up with the theory of everything and proves it, then I'll conceed.
"Consider a theory, the big bang. Now consider a piece of evidence, the speed and direction of galaxies. that piece of evidence depends ot our theory of light, relativity theory, chemisty, our theory of the composition of stars, atomic theory, optical geometry, etc. Analyze each theory and you will find theories all the way down. "
Of course. And they are supported by confidence in each of them, not in the certainty that they are facts. My lack of certainty doesn't stop my having confidence in the same thing. That confidence allows me to draw conclusions and postulate new theories based on my confidence in the others. I do not subscribe to the fallacy that any of them are fact. The fallacy is a form of intelectual shorthand, which while usefull for the most part and effective in walking down the street, can a) lead to errors and b) be dishonest.
"Nor are crucial experiments logically crucial. Crucial experiments leave scientists with a choice between adopting a new theory and patching the old one with a minor ad-hoc hypothesis that explains away the anamoly. The second choice is the one made almost always. The first choice is the rare scientific thunderstorm."
my point exactly, that's why theories aren't facts.
"The problem with the categorical distinction between observable facts and unobservable theories is that, under close scrutiny, it leaves us knowing nothing scientifically, because no requirement of not being dependent on some theoretical assumption. It is conceptually possible to go this way"
It is perfectly possible to be known scientifically. It puts everything on the same plane. It provides a common premise for everything described. It doesn't allow for mistaken certainty when there is no reason for it. It is when the subjective feeling of certainty is removed and not relabeled as confidence that the premise is not understood and uncertainty results.
And now, we've definetly gotten out of away form the physics and philosophy and into the realm of psychology and sociology.
"We want science to make definite statements about reality. When it succeeds we want to treat the result as we treat every other simple fact."
We want the confidence that we regularly walk around with. Fine, I'm not taking that away. I'm not allowing the a higher standard to be lowered to the level of "normal experience". A part of Science deals with the unknown, with the unobservable, i.e you can't Physically see something. There must be confidence in it beyond the limited scope of our physical experience. When the first nuclear bomb were detonated, Scientists and others, didn't know what the effect would be. Some thought we might destroy the world. Others had the confidence had the confidence in the theories. Even if there was no "evidence" or "facts" to support them. They knew the method that they used supported the conclusions they drew. And had as much confidence as a someone else in saying "the earth revolve around the Sun".
I define facts as statements that claim that a state of affairs obtains in reality independent of our awareness, and whose claim is accepted by relevant authorities I claim such statements are the product of human history, and in that sense they are "constructed"
It appears that your "relevent authority" is history. Your definiton states a "reality independent of our awareness", then you claim it as the result of history. History might be a place to find facts, based on a temporal measure (ie, The Declaration of Independence was signed on July 4th, 1776), but not a method to determining facts like "the earth resolves around the sun".
a fact under your defintion, should not require any human perception to exist, and only acceptance from a relevent authority to recognize it and use it. The value of Pi would be the same no matter if any one ever calculates it out fully. The same for the speed of light in a vacum, it's never been measured to it's end, but yet Einstein was able to use it, e=mc2 (I'm not putting a superscript in html.)
You are arguing how the world works, according to you, physics is a "Social Construct" drawn from history. Physics as a Social concept might be, the results of experiments are not. Social Constructivism, might influence the ideas and the questions asked, but it has no effect on the results of the expermints conduted in persuit of answeringthose questions. Heisnberg has something to say about that, but I've never heard him descibed as a social construtionist.
people are people. To paraphrase a Tom Lee Jones line, "A person is smart, people are dumb and panicky."
Science IS a web of theories. Science IS based on facts .
A theory is an attempt to explain a set of observations, those facts available. A hypothesis is a specific application of that theory. Based on theory A, this phenomena should occur and result in X. An experiment is an attempt to answer the question of whether a hypothesis is correct. The experimental evidence are the Facts. They attempt to draw a very hard line and answer yes or no. Therefore a theory is not a fact in and of itself, but a description premised on facts.
To properly describe it.
"The sun revolves around the Earth" is a theory just as much as "the earth revolves around the sun is". Galileo collected observed phenomena that the first theory did not explain and postulated the second.
The people of that time commited the same offense you are and said that the first was a fact and the second wasn't, and thereby justified their actions towards him. Their facts were drawn on form the church rather then your more "enlightened" view. But both hold the same error in assuming the respective theory is a fact, not a description based on facts and that those facts are limited rather then exhaustive in their sample of conditions they represent.
OK I keep trying to reply to this but everytime I start writing something I'm coming
from a different direction. So let's try this:
I'm not playing with words, I'm being literal. I'm using one definition
and you are using another. The definiton I am using doesn't allow for
playing with words, your's does.
"The social construction of facts is precisely the process through
which hypoteses/theories turn into facts."
For the defintion you are using, not the one I am.
"Every scientific fact started its life at some point as a hypothesis."
Are you saying that a fact didn't exist until it was hypothesised? then how did
anything get done before the creation of the scientific method? Oh crap, this
is one o the reasons that people yell about conciet of the Western thoughts
and ideals, because people are careless in thier thoughts and language
and say things like this.
We take.... We think it.... By this we means....
Logical fallacy of appeal to the masses.
...the evidence is conclusive
So there is a hard line somewhere?
I'd say that evidence provides a
strong basis for confidence in the threory.
You may want to suggest that the difference...
No, I'll make my own suggestion.
That Facts are absolutes, they are always true, if at some point they aren't true, then they either weren't facts in the first place or something is wrong.
That clarity counts, especially in scientific inquiry.
Hypothesis may never be proven, but empirical results can provide the basis for confidence in a hypothesis. Therefore the baby, bathwater and
bathtub can all be saved. Newtonian Physics isn't "wrong" but it didn't explain all the phenomena it should. Einsteinian Physics did a better job, but still phenomena was found that it couldn't explain. Enter Quantum Physics, fills in more
of the blanks. Are any of them 'facts', no they are theories on which hypothesis are based and tested and the results of those tests are emprical evidence. The empirical evidence can be a "Fact", but the Theory and Hypothesis are not.
Our sense can be fooled and just wrong. Extending them is no guarentee of accuracy.
ur Knowledge and understanding is limited, even if it's not b capacity.
"Again, with these kind of "facts", we don't need hypotheses, and that is why I suggest it makes more sense to treat the statement like 'the earth turns around the sun' in the common-sensish way, as a fact. "
In the "common-sensish" (ie the majority of people believed it) way the statement "the sun resolves around the earth" is a fact. And we therfore
have two "facts" in direct opposition. which is an absurdity. I'll stick with the theory that the earth revolves around the sun, which has more empirical evidence (Facts) to support it and enjoy the ride.
If you still do not agree that this is the common sense idea of facts..."
haven't you ever heard that common sense isn't so common?
"The role of the jury is to do 'fact finding'. what facts are found?"
No, it is not the role of the jury to find facts. A nice ideal though. A jury decides guilt or innocence, and not even based on the evidence (Jury Nullification).
I think your right with how the aarticle used "fact" and in prinicple, at least I agree with you. That said you can finish this here:)
I think Rusty used this definition;
"The assertion or statement of a thing done or existing; sometimes,even when false, improperly put, by a transfer of meaning, for the thing done, or supposed to be done; a thing supposed or asserted to be done; as, history abounds with false facts."
my problem comes for the multiple definitions that can be used for the word. It creates a communications problem. If I use the words "fact " or "truth" am I using the absolute definition or the relative one? It might no be clear from context, especially if I'm combining the use of the definitions in the same conversation. I either lower my standard to accept the relativistic use or I imply more credibality then is implied if I use the absolute. It's a good literary trick to increase the "authority" of something that isn't absolute.
Unfortunatly we don't have a convention in english where "Facts" and "Truths" mean the harder defintion and "facts" and "truth" the easier. Even if we did it only helps in written communication.
I like to keep things simple. So I'd prefer to keep my facts and truths as absolutes, then we dont' have to figure out what they mean and lets us focus on the item being discussed. That item
has no absoluteness and is subject to change without adding in language base complexity.
and yes I'd agree that social conventions are an inescapable part of life, but I don't know if that is a fact;)
I made a literal reply to the Def in another thread but to expand:
3. Reality; actuality; truth
So you operate under def 5 and I'll use def 3.
In the mean time I'll disagree with your premise for the rest of your statement.
"There are things we agree upon... our Facts, our Truths, our Laws, our Absolutes, etc.
and there are things we don't... someones Facts, someones Truths, someones Laws, etc."
Those should all be lower case letters, "facts", "truths", "laws", "absolutes". Implied is that there are no facts or truths seperate form our perceptions. since the first statement relies on consensus between indiviual perceptions and the second relies solely on the indivdual.
I submit that there are fact and truths which are seperate from our perceptions, i.e. if a tree falls in the woods, and no one is there to hear it, it does make a sound. Therefore capital "Truths", "Facts", "Absolutes", "Laws".
It may be a subtle difference, but it is significant.
Of course this is part of the nature of communication. So we know/understand/realize what each of us is talking about.
Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary "1 : a thing done: as a obsolete : FEAT b : CRIME c archaic : ACTION
2 archaic : PERFORMANCE, DOING
3 : the quality of being actual : ACTUALITY
4 a : something that has actual existence
b : an actual occurrence
5 : a piece of information presented as having objective reality - in fact : in truth
also from Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary:
"3. Reality; actuality; truth; as, he, in fact, excelled all the rest; the fact is, he was beaten."
The Definition in The Cambridge Online Dictionary.
"something which is known to have happened or to exist, esp. something for which proof exists, or about which there is information "
a usage note from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.
"USAGE NOTES: Fact has a long history of usage in the sense "allegation of fact," as in "This tract was distributed to thousands of American teachers, but the facts and the reasoning are wrong" (Albert Shanker) This practice has led to the introduction of the phrases true facts and real facts, as in "The true facts of the case may never be known." These usages may occasion qualms among critics who insist that facts can only be true, but the usages are often useful for emphasis. "
No wonder I don't use Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary. sloppy.
That's why there's more then one dictionary, now if we can decide on an acceptable definiton we can have a conversation.
'But the other thing your saying is that the 20th century American conception of what is a "right" and what is a "fact" are absolutes. They are not.'
Rights might not be absolute, That has been the discussion of philosophers for centruries.
Facts on the other hand are treated as absolutes, by definition.
'And it is the most supreme arrogance to assume they are.'
No it isn't, it is the means by which we communite effectively with each other. It is the context in which we hold our conversations and exchange ideas. It does increase the results of those discussions.
'Humanity flourished for 20,000 without today's Western "knowledge" of natural science and the scientific method'
That is an ascertion, to some that is enough to make it a fact. To others it is an opinion, since there is no evidence provided to support it. I would just like you to define "flourish" so I could decide where I stand.
'The worst mistake any of us can make is to blindly assume that the society in which we live is the greatest society ever, and it's a mistake too many of us have made.'
maybe it is, maybe not, but please demonstate where this is occuring in this discusion.
There's nothing anyone can say that will change your mind, but I wish, with all hope, that you take the time to thoroughly question the fundamental axioms upon which these philosophies are based.
Hmmm... IT should be obvious to such a student as yourself that, "The earth turns around the sun" is an accepted scientific hypothisis, not a fact. Just as "it is a fact that the sun turns around the earth" is. Both are positive assertions that at the respective times were percieved as correct, but not necessarilly true and therefore not facts.
This is place were relativistic thinking tries to insert itself into science. The condtions here don't confirm or deny the existence of facts, but rather the limit of knowedge, that the information that these statements are based on may appear as true, but can be based on incomplete and therefore inaccuate premises. It might be a fact, but we aren't sure about it.
hmmm somewhere in school some of us were taught that the difference between;
"You are an ignorant troll. "
and
"I believe that you are an ignorant troll."
was the "I believe..." portion. Both were statements of opinion, neither of fact. the difference is simply proper attribution of the opinion.
a definition:
fact, n;
a piece of information about circumstances that exist or events that have occurred; "first you must collect all the facts of the case"
a statement or assertion of verified information about something that is the case or has happened; "he supported his argument with an impressive array of facts"
an event known to have happened or something known to have existed; "your fears have no basis in fact"; "how much of the story is fact and how much fiction is hard to tell"
a concept whose truth can be proved; "scientific hypotheses are not facts"
Re:Faulty logic left & right (mostly left, hehe)
on
Why Community Matters
·
· Score: 1
Rusty doesn't like spin, unless it's spin he puts out in his own direction.
Slashdot Mirror
I would just like to know how Facebook was defining "fake or hoax news stories" for the purposes of their filter.
A firearm may have ben purchased legal at some point, but there was a very good chance it was stolen at some point too.
Instead of stricter gun controls, why don't we try something that hasn't been tried, but a variant has. We increased laws for those crimes that occurred with the use of a gun, assault becomes aggravated assault, robbery becomes armed robbery, etc. This is fine for going after the crime, but doesn’t stop the firearms from getting into the black market. So why not increase the penalties for possessing a stolen firearm, and even better for just stealing one. Say theft of a fire arm or possession of a stolen one, is minimum 20 years in prison served consecutively to any other conviction.
This way we triy to make it more painfull for the people who steal guns to sell them rather then for just the people who buy them and use them.
The first clause does mean something in regards to the last two clauses, but probalbly not what most people think. Most people read "well regulated" and think, "Army" and if not army, then iether Reserve or National Guard, and all that organization carries with it. The Guard and Reserve are both trained and equiped by the Federal governement and are trainined and equiped to be pretty compatable with the regular Army itself, in general. All are issued equipment and go through boot camp to learn to use, maintain and fire that equipment among other things.
In a militia, members normally equipe and train themselves as individuals and small units. This being the case, well regulated takes on a differnt meaning, it means moving towards a normalized state within the militia, but not necessarilly standardization. It is something as simple as; having a long gun, having ammunition for it, having a sufficient quantity of that ammunition, having magazines for it, knowing how to clean and maintain it, knowing how to fire it accurately and otherwise how to operate it, for example. For the militia, there is no bootcamp, these all are things a civillian can do and learn on thier own and can do if there is no organized miltia at the time.
So that you don't have a group of 50 people; 19 with rifles, some with a single magazine for their AR15s. 15 people with pistols and 9 with various types of shotguns, and between 6 and 500 rounds each. The guy with 500 rounds is shooting a .22LR, so he can at least share ammo with the 3 people with .22 rifles. Then there are another 4 with bows, 2 with crossbows and 1 guy with a blowgun. Well regulated at least means There would be 50 people with rifles, and 250 rounds each, even if they weren't all .223, but a mix of .223, .308, 30-06 and other calibers.
This technoilogy is and the law submited for it are as good as the law proposed to have breathalyzer ignition interlocks put into all new cars.
Do you want to have to blow into a tube everytime you want to start your car, too?
The original WANT is for on-call schedules. The ISSUE is that some idiot plugged his own server into the network and wants to allow access to it from the outside world.
The NEEDS are probably why IT doesn't have the time to jump at this request.
That's Fox Business News, not Fox news.
This was denied by the president of IMAX this morning on CNBC or Fox news. He was asked directly about this and responded that this was only an internet rumor.
You could use Domainmonger.com.
It has a service called DNS Plus, at no additonal cost then your registration. One function of the service is to set up mail forwarding. This is great if you just want to use a domain for email.
You define the email address then the email account where the mail should be forwarded too.
I think you can set up upto 20 email account per domain. You can even configure the service not to forward.
If you use Gmail you can set up Gmail so that you can reply with the account name that is forwarded. Then no one knows you were in Gmail, no additional cost and you get POP and IMAP access.
It's not that there is no Next Big Thing.
It's that Dinofrio is out of imagination.
"The music industry owns the music it produces. It can set the price for that music at whatever level it wants. You must decided if that price is reasonable enough for you to purchase it (including all possible future costs). If it is then buy it, if not then look for alternative music sources."
The INDUSTRY doesn't own all the music. Indivdual entities (artists or record companies) that make up the INDUSTRY, own some music each. any OWNER can set the price for the music that THEY own, not what someone else owns. Warner Brothers shouldn't be setting the price for the Music Sony owns. This isn't about BUYING any way.
This is about LICENSING fees. How much it costs to play music over the Internet, even if you have already PURCHASED the music. Went to the store and bought the CD.
The GOVERNMENT is setting the COST to play the music over the internet. You can get a LICENSE from an OWNER to pay an amount that you both agree to to play the music they own. When no such LICENSE is in place between the music OWNER and the player, the GOVERNMENT rate is in effect.
"Why do webcasters have ANY say in what the RIAA charges for allowing them to broadcast their music?"
They don't. But this isn't the RIAA charging, It's the government setting the default rate. Not the rate the RIAA is charging. The RIAA is an industry repesentation organization, not the owners in the first place anyway. Those are the record companies and the artists. So the RIAA lobbies the government on behalf of the record companies.
"If they think it is too much, then why not play
music from another group that is more affordable?"
There is no lower rate in the absence of an express license agreement. There is no "other group", there must be another agreement. Now imagine everyone who wants to webcast trying to negotiate a seperate lower rate with each group/record compnay/artist etc. Now theres no music because everyone's busy negotiating or the cost of a CD goes through the roof to employ all the people to negotiate. Then there are no webcasters cause they are trying to negotiate and not webcast. Or they cant' afford the rates 'cause the cost went through the roof so the lowest negotiated rate is still higher then the default rate.
"How is this any different than somebody deciding to sell Ford cars and then complaining that Ford won't give them the cars to sell for $1 each?"
Sorry miss whatever this means.
If you did buy a car from Ford, you could use the car to make money without having to pay more to Ford for using the car for that purpose though.
"If somebody owns something, then they can charge whatever they want to allow other people to use it. If you think that the charge is too much for the product, then DON'T BUY IT!"
True, they can, no problem. But how many things do you buy that you can't use in any way you want after you've purchased it free and clear. How many things do you buy that you will have to pay more for after you've bought it, without any increase in value above what you orignally purchased it with? "Hi. we're from Ford, you bought this car from us 6 months ago, it now costs $3K more and we want our money."
Under the War Powers Act the sixty day rule is correct. Congress passed a specific resolution shortly after Sept 11 concerning this and it leaves an opened ended time frame. This legislation was the closest thing to a
Declaration of War and the probably won't be one under the current situation
"But there is a new reality in the post-World Trade Center world ..."
..." There won't be one then either, just a new shock for those who got caught like you did this time.
..."
No there isn't. Somebody just demonstrated what others had been saying for years. There ain't nothing new other then the fact it dawned on you it could be done. The reality is the same, just like the likelyhood of a bioogical attack is the
same as it was last week, It's not a question of "if" but "when".
"But the terrorist attack has changed the entire context of these discussions, putting the issues far beyond knee-jerk reflexes"
No it hasn't, some folks have been considering this for a long time already, all that's
changed is that it's been brought into horrible reality for those who didn't think that way.
All we have seen up until this point is knee jerk reactions, Finally some folks are starting to come down and rethink some of the things that have been said in the last week. You aren't one of those folks yet. Understandable and completely reasonable, just let cooler heads prevail right now.
"But there is also something reflexively knee-jerk in the automatic 'they-are-taking-our-freedoms-away' response from certain quarters online
Maybe that is because the realize that much of this is completely emotional response durring
a very emotionally charged time and that we don't have a good record for making decisions
at times like this. They also realize that it's a very focused reaction right no and that the
full implications of what is being discussed isn't being considered.
"But it needs -- deserves -- to be rationally and openly considered."
So let the rational do it, if it's an emotional discussion because of the tragidies, the same emotiotons will run as high onthe other side and it simply turns into an expression of emotion about the tragidies by people taking opposing sides on an issue.
"The thousands of dead and millions of others who work in vulnerable office towers,
or travel or study or live near airports (or schools, or ports, or national symbols)
have rights too, and they have been grievously violated. have rights too, and they
have been grievously violated."
Yes, and they have duties too, and those have been horribly failed.
"The government has an obligation to protect them."
There is a limit to what any govenrment can do here, There is an obligation for the individual to be responsible for thier own saftey and the safety of others.
"...while most Americans shrug it off as a new convenience."
Until someone figures out a way to get a hold of that data and start performing terrorists acts with it. Then there will be a New hue and Cry and people will be just as suprised and realizing the same things and saying very similar things to what you are saying now; "... there is a new reality in the
Maybe the next terrorist attack won't be a nuke in London, Tokyo, Cairo, Chicago or a biological weapon in Tel Aviv, Stockholm, Moscow or San Fransisco. it might be getting access to the Fed's store of Backdoor entry systems into crypto and destroying or altering that so that they don't work or work incorrectly.
"The failure to do that last week occurred primarily, many terrorism experts say,
because our existing intelligence institutions don't have the human resources, the technology or the laws to keep up with a sophisticated, well-funded, technologically-savvy network of murderous enemies"
Why not handle the first two before playing with the laws? Fix the Human resource and technology problems, before changing the laws?
"We might want to ponder what rights we owe the living and owed the dead
We also might want to ponder what the dead had, that the died because they had and that stepping back from those is a terrible offense against them. We should work harder and smarter to protect what we had, not back away in fear. Since fear is whata terrorist wants, that would be a victory for them.
The Download cypto option is gone because you no longer need to go to a server outside the US to get decent drypto. Mandrake includes it on the CDs now. Export restrictions have been lifted. :)
OK that's your definition of facts. Mine is facts ARE a subclass observable phenomena, for common use they are the observed subclass, The unobserved are still facts by definition, the observable portion has not been completed. Propositions and statements are just that, propositions and statements, they might describe a fact or refer to a fact, but are not "facts".
In the defintion I am using a fact may not make a claim of truth, they must be true. A "claim" of truth is not truth, and allows for the possibility that the fact is false and therefore not a fact.
Again with the dependency on some form of Human acceptance, relying on some form of perception. Since your definition allows for the posibility of falsehood in your "facts" it now becomes needed. Mine still doesn't.
"The earth turns around the sun" IS a statement. It DOES refer to an observable phenomena. There is an IMPLIED claim of it being HONEST. It IS commonly accepted to be correct.
"In addition, facts differ from theories: theories also make truth claims about phenomena, but they are recognized only as potentially true by the relavant authorities."
You are now agreeing with me on theories? What happened to the asertion that nothing can operate under this condition, where it only introduces uncertainty? This is what I've said, a theory isn't a fact because it can be false or wrong. The empirical evidence, the facts, do not make it a fact.
"The difference is a matter of degree only."
A degree is more then enough. The difference between being alive and dead is only a heartbeat.
I don't claim that reality independent of our awareness is the product of our history, but that the facts, as ...
Ok, so replace "fact" with statement and we'll all be happy. I can discuss the "statement" but not the "fact". A fact implies a certainty which is more then a "claim" can justify. The certainty that is implied with "fact", I call confidence. The "truth" of the "claim", I'll call honesty.
The Rosetta Stone of a discourse, cool.
"It assumes that the evidence observed is of a different order than the theories supported by the evidence."
ARGH!! I though we just agreed on this. It IS a different order, by that "degree" you mentioned, the "potentialy true" as opposed being "True".
"Evidence is provided by measuring instruments and measuring instruments are only trustworthy because of the acceptability of the theories that explain them"
Yes.
"Thus, almost all scientific evidence is not factual by your definition, because it depends on the validity of theories that, as you said, cannot be proven( though this evidence is factual according to my definition.)"
The results of experimentaion are facts, the intepretations of them are not. When someone comes up with the theory of everything and proves it, then I'll conceed.
"Consider a theory, the big bang. Now consider a piece of evidence, the speed and direction of galaxies. that piece of evidence depends ot our theory of light, relativity theory, chemisty, our theory of the composition of stars, atomic theory, optical geometry, etc. Analyze each theory and you will find theories all the way down. "
Of course. And they are supported by confidence in each of them, not in the certainty that they are facts. My lack of certainty doesn't stop my having confidence in the same thing. That confidence allows me to draw conclusions and postulate new theories based on my confidence in the others. I do not subscribe to the fallacy that any of them are fact. The fallacy is a form of intelectual shorthand, which while usefull for the most part and effective in walking down the street, can a) lead to errors and b) be dishonest.
"Nor are crucial experiments logically crucial. Crucial experiments leave scientists with a choice between adopting a new theory and patching the old one with a minor ad-hoc hypothesis that explains away the anamoly. The second choice is the one made almost always. The first choice is the rare scientific thunderstorm."
my point exactly, that's why theories aren't facts.
"The problem with the categorical distinction between observable facts and unobservable theories is that, under close scrutiny, it leaves us knowing nothing scientifically, because no requirement of not being dependent on some theoretical assumption. It is conceptually possible to go this way"
It is perfectly possible to be known scientifically. It puts everything on the same plane. It provides a common premise for everything described. It doesn't allow for mistaken certainty when there is no reason for it. It is when the subjective feeling of certainty is removed and not relabeled as confidence that the premise is not understood and uncertainty results.
And now, we've definetly gotten out of away form the physics and philosophy and into the realm of psychology and sociology.
"We want science to make definite statements about reality. When it succeeds we want to treat the result as we treat every other simple fact."
We want the confidence that we regularly walk around with. Fine, I'm not taking that away. I'm not allowing the a higher standard to be lowered to the level of "normal experience". A part of Science deals with the unknown, with the unobservable, i.e you can't Physically see something. There must be confidence in it beyond the limited scope of our physical experience. When the first nuclear bomb were detonated, Scientists and others, didn't know what the effect would be. Some thought we might destroy the world. Others had the confidence had the confidence in the theories. Even if there was no "evidence" or "facts" to support them. They knew the method that they used supported the conclusions they drew. And had as much confidence as a someone else in saying "the earth revolve around the Sun".
It appears that your "relevent authority" is history. Your definiton states a "reality independent of our awareness", then you claim it as the result of history. History might be a place to find facts, based on a temporal measure (ie, The Declaration of Independence was signed on July 4th, 1776), but not a method to determining facts like "the earth resolves around the sun".
a fact under your defintion, should not require any human perception to exist, and only acceptance from a relevent authority to recognize it and use it. The value of Pi would be the same no matter if any one ever calculates it out fully. The same for the speed of light in a vacum, it's never been measured to it's end, but yet Einstein was able to use it, e=mc2 (I'm not putting a superscript in html.)
You are arguing how the world works, according to you, physics is a "Social Construct" drawn from history. Physics as a Social concept might be, the results of experiments are not. Social Constructivism, might influence the ideas and the questions asked, but it has no effect on the results of the expermints conduted in persuit of answeringthose questions. Heisnberg has something to say about that, but I've never heard him descibed as a social construtionist.
people are people. To paraphrase a Tom Lee Jones line, "A person is smart, people are dumb and panicky."
Science IS a web of theories. Science IS based on facts .
A theory is an attempt to explain a set of observations, those facts available. A hypothesis is a specific application of that theory. Based on theory A, this phenomena should occur and result in X. An experiment is an attempt to answer the question of whether a hypothesis is correct. The experimental evidence are the Facts. They attempt to draw a very hard line and answer yes or no. Therefore a theory is not a fact in and of itself, but a description premised on facts.
To properly describe it.
"The sun revolves around the Earth" is a theory just as much as "the earth revolves around the sun is". Galileo collected observed phenomena that the first theory did not explain and postulated the second.
The people of that time commited the same offense you are and said that the first was a fact and the second wasn't, and thereby justified their actions towards him. Their facts were drawn on form the church rather then your more "enlightened" view. But both hold the same error in assuming the respective theory is a fact, not a description based on facts and that those facts are limited rather then exhaustive in their sample of conditions they represent.
I'm not playing with words, I'm being literal. I'm using one definition and you are using another. The definiton I am using doesn't allow for playing with words, your's does.
"The social construction of facts is precisely the process through which hypoteses/theories turn into facts."
For the defintion you are using, not the one I am.
"Every scientific fact started its life at some point as a hypothesis."
Are you saying that a fact didn't exist until it was hypothesised? then how did anything get done before the creation of the scientific method? Oh crap, this is one o the reasons that people yell about conciet of the Western thoughts and ideals, because people are careless in thier thoughts and language and say things like this.
We take .... We think it .... By this we means ....
Logical fallacy of appeal to the masses.
So there is a hard line somewhere?
I'd say that evidence provides a strong basis for confidence in the threory.
You may want to suggest that the difference...
No, I'll make my own suggestion.
- That Facts are absolutes, they are always true, if at some point they aren't true, then they either weren't facts in the first place or something is wrong.
- That clarity counts, especially in scientific inquiry.
- Hypothesis may never be proven, but empirical results can provide the basis for confidence in a hypothesis. Therefore the baby, bathwater and
bathtub can all be saved. Newtonian Physics isn't "wrong" but it didn't explain all the phenomena it should. Einsteinian Physics did a better job, but still phenomena was found that it couldn't explain. Enter Quantum Physics, fills in more
of the blanks. Are any of them 'facts', no they are theories on which hypothesis are based and tested and the results of those tests are emprical evidence. The empirical evidence can be a "Fact", but the Theory and Hypothesis are not.
- Our sense can be fooled and just wrong. Extending them is no guarentee of accuracy.
- ur Knowledge and understanding is limited, even if it's not b capacity.
"Again, with these kind of "facts", we don't need hypotheses, and that is why I suggest it makes more sense to treat the statement like 'the earth turns around the sun' in the common-sensish way, as a fact. "In the "common-sensish" (ie the majority of people believed it) way the statement "the sun resolves around the earth" is a fact. And we therfore have two "facts" in direct opposition. which is an absurdity. I'll stick with the theory that the earth revolves around the sun, which has more empirical evidence (Facts) to support it and enjoy the ride.
If you still do not agree that this is the common sense idea of facts..."
haven't you ever heard that common sense isn't so common?
"The role of the jury is to do 'fact finding'. what facts are found?"
No, it is not the role of the jury to find facts. A nice ideal though. A jury decides guilt or innocence, and not even based on the evidence (Jury Nullification).
I think Rusty used this definition;
"The assertion or statement of a thing done or existing; sometimes,even when false, improperly put, by a transfer of meaning, for the thing done, or supposed to be done; a thing supposed or asserted to be done; as, history abounds with false facts."
my problem comes for the multiple definitions that can be used for the word. It creates a communications problem. If I use the words "fact " or "truth" am I using the absolute definition or the relative one? It might no be clear from context, especially if I'm combining the use of the definitions in the same conversation. I either lower my standard to accept the relativistic use or I imply more credibality then is implied if I use the absolute. It's a good literary trick to increase the "authority" of something that isn't absolute.
Unfortunatly we don't have a convention in english where "Facts" and "Truths" mean the harder defintion and "facts" and "truth" the easier. Even if we did it only helps in written communication.
I like to keep things simple. So I'd prefer to keep my facts and truths as absolutes, then we dont' have to figure out what they mean and lets us focus on the item being discussed. That item has no absoluteness and is subject to change without adding in language base complexity.
and yes I'd agree that social conventions are an inescapable part of life, but I don't know if that is a fact ;)
"There are things we agree upon... our Facts, our Truths, our Laws, our Absolutes, etc.
and there are things we don't... someones Facts, someones Truths, someones Laws, etc."
Those should all be lower case letters, "facts", "truths", "laws", "absolutes". Implied is that there are no facts or truths seperate form our perceptions. since the first statement relies on consensus between indiviual perceptions and the second relies solely on the indivdual.
I submit that there are fact and truths which are seperate from our perceptions, i.e. if a tree falls in the woods, and no one is there to hear it, it does make a sound. Therefore capital "Truths", "Facts", "Absolutes", "Laws".
It may be a subtle difference, but it is significant.
Of course this is part of the nature of communication. So we know/understand/realize what each of us is talking about.
Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary
"1 : a thing done: as a obsolete : FEAT b : CRIME c archaic : ACTION
2 archaic : PERFORMANCE, DOING
3 : the quality of being actual : ACTUALITY
4 a : something that has actual existence
b : an actual occurrence
5 : a piece of information presented as having objective reality - in fact : in truth
also from Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary:
"3. Reality; actuality; truth; as, he, in fact, excelled all the rest; the fact is, he was beaten."
The Definition in The Cambridge Online Dictionary.
"something which is known to have happened or to exist, esp. something for which proof exists, or about which there is information "
a usage note from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.
"USAGE NOTES: Fact has a long history of usage in the sense "allegation of fact," as in "This tract was distributed to thousands of American teachers, but the facts and the reasoning are wrong" (Albert Shanker) This practice has led to the introduction of the phrases true facts and real facts, as in "The true facts of the case may never be known." These usages may occasion qualms among critics who insist that facts can only be true, but the usages are often useful for emphasis. "
No wonder I don't use Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary. sloppy. That's why there's more then one dictionary, now if we can decide on an acceptable definiton we can have a conversation.
Rights might not be absolute, That has been the discussion of philosophers for centruries.
Facts on the other hand are treated as absolutes, by definition.
'And it is the most supreme arrogance to assume they are.'
No it isn't, it is the means by which we communite effectively with each other. It is the context in which we hold our conversations and exchange ideas. It does increase the results of those discussions.
'Humanity flourished for 20,000 without today's Western "knowledge" of natural science and the scientific method'
That is an ascertion, to some that is enough to make it a fact. To others it is an opinion, since there is no evidence provided to support it. I would just like you to define "flourish" so I could decide where I stand.
'The worst mistake any of us can make is to blindly assume that the society in which we live is the greatest society ever, and it's a mistake too many of us have made.'
maybe it is, maybe not, but please demonstate where this is occuring in this discusion.
There's nothing anyone can say that will change your mind, but I wish, with all hope, that you take the time to thoroughly question the fundamental axioms upon which these philosophies are based.
This is place were relativistic thinking tries to insert itself into science. The condtions here don't confirm or deny the existence of facts, but rather the limit of knowedge, that the information that these statements are based on may appear as true, but can be based on incomplete and therefore inaccuate premises. It might be a fact, but we aren't sure about it.
the problem is the definition and context of "equal"
"You are an ignorant troll. "
and
"I believe that you are an ignorant troll."
was the "I believe..." portion. Both were statements of opinion, neither of fact. the difference is simply proper attribution of the opinion.
a definition:
fact, n;
Rusty doesn't like spin, unless it's spin he puts out in his own direction.