A computer is not a car, nor is it a dog. But it's more like the car than the dog. It does not go do things by itself without human intervention. The human who commands it to do the illegal thing should be the only one held responsible.
Holding individual owners responsible for staying ahead of an ever-increasing threat is absurd.
It took time because of the mountain of deferred security work. Same thing for Apple but before anybody writes them off, check out the mountain of money piled up to their chins.
As a Catholic, disproving the Bible means little to me since it is only a part of my faith, not the whole foundation of it. Protestants however must frantically fight to prove the book entirely correct because of their subscription to the sola scriptura heresy which separates them from Catholicism.
To me, Genesis is a collection of myths with a spiritual truth to be discerned from them. They are instructive stories, not a literal chronicle of events.
And the funny part of that is that Catholics wrote and edited the bible before the Protestants got hold of it.
Well, do they feel the breeze on their testes?
I think the rest of it goes without saying for any religion, unreligion or non religion.
None of it detracts or corrects my view that Athiests are the worst proselytizers of the lot.
Point?
No. Most christians are. Or most insert least favourite ideology here.
Considering the fact that we are discussing Atheist Shoes, I'd say that is being pretty preachy.
Your point about confirmation bias is valid though but I think that part of the problem that atheists in general tend to suffer from is that the noisy ones are making difficult for everyone else. This of course, is the same problem that most of the religions in the world tend to suffer from.
The companion experiment would be to package some shoes in "Christian Shoes" boxes. It's pretty clear from the experiment that some Prayer Warrior saw the labels and responded by delaying or stealing the packages. "I wonder what kind of depraved shoes atheists wear???"
The job description for Christian is to spread the word.
Atheists have no such commission, strictly voluntary.
Also, the definition of Christian is used pretty damn loosely around here.
Most claiming Christianity aren't. They just claim it because they attend church or got dunked in a baptismal pool at some time or another.
There is no Christianity in their life outside the church, but they tell themselves they are Christians and gain an unworthy sense of superiority by holding others up to their " standard", whatever that is.
I suppose they are also not true Scotsmen? Maybe you're forgetting about that business about Christians being chosen by God to receive grace and the rest of us going to hell because only Christians are purified from sin. They're better than us because God made them that way. They don't explicitly teach the "better than us" narrative, but it's there between the lines for anyone to read.
In my previous comment I copied and pasted the first sentence word for word from the Wikipedia article so that you could interpret it. I have already interpreted it, and my initial comment in this thread was almost exactly the same. Allow me to post the first sentence from the Wikipedia article again (so that you can interpret it again), since you clearly think my one sentence is/was totally off base:
Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of capital goods and the means of production, with the creation of goods and services for profit.[1][2] Elements central to capitalism include capital accumulation, competitive markets, and a price system.....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism
That much is correct.
Now, allow me to post my original comment (which I again re-posted in my last comment so that you could compare both), in order to tell whether or not I have misinterpreted the Wikipedia statement (I hate being repetitive, but don't tell me I am misinterpreting the english language when you aren't even reading my comments):
In Capitalism each agent within the system maintains private ownership over its belongings, and has the freedom to choose its activities within the system.
Are you really going to sit here and tell me I egregiously misinterpreted what was written on Wikipedia? Like, actually?
I wouldn't put so much faith in a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia articles vary wildly in quality. Apparently the one you're quoting is poorly written unless you're misrepresenting it. Communism and Capitalism are complex subjects. The first thing you should understand is that between them, they don't exhaust all the possibilities by a long shot.
CAPITALISM is an economic system wherein the role of CAPITAL is paramount. What you described is called "private property" and existed literally AGES before the rise of anything called Capitalism. In a CAPITALIST SYSTEM, major industry is the owned and controlled principally by people whose contribution to the industry is their investment of CAPITAL, i.e. money, property, plant and equipment. You should recognize that our economy in the USA is like that.
The labor to run that industry is not the doing of the capitalists. They purchase or contract it from others who do not have sufficient capital to set themselves up in competition with the capitalist-owned enterprise, but have skills and time to sell.
An example of a non-capitalist system that has private property is subsistence farming. The farmer owns his own livestock, tools and land.
This is to be contrasted with sharecropping. A sharecropper doesn't own his own land. He labor for the capitalist who owns his farm. He may or may not own any of the tools and stock on the farm.
It is also to be contrasted with collective farming, where the farm, the tools and stock are owned by the collective. That is Communism straight up.
The problem isn't that antibiotics are used in animal husbandry. I have no problem with a vet prescribing antibiotics to save a sick cow or horse. Treat the cow the same way you would a human and it will be fine in a few days. The problem occurs when they chronically give antibiotics to a lot of animals that aren't sick. First, that's abuse of the drugs and the animals. Second, it doesn't kill off all the bacteria. It just gives a slight advantage to bacteria that are more resistant, thus creating the selection pressure to create resistant strains. Third, the antibiotics get in the milk and meat so resistant bacteria grow in that.
The law should say: (1) you can't give antibiotics to animals that are not sick (2) you can't sell edible animal products from animals that have been treated with antibiotics until after a waiting period (e.g. 10 days) to ensure that the antibiotics have cleared from their systems. (There would have to be randomized testing of products to enforce this.) (3) FDA clearance should be required to use drugs in animals at all and it wouldn't be given for classes of drugs that are needed to fight otherwise-resistant strains in humans.
You don't understand Communism. In Communism (not state Socialism like in the USSR but the kind Marx described), the workers own the means of production and control their own productivity. You and your computer are very much like that. Furthermore, Linux belongs to you with respect to how you can use it and modify it and to nobody in the sense that everybody can have as many copies as they want.
In Capitalism, the means of production belongs to financiers and say what you will and won't do with it.
The state is necessarily involved because it has to do with the ownership of joint property. Ownership of property is a legal thing and disputes over it are necessarily governed by the state.
With fertile hetero couples, this also extends to the state having a necessary interest in establishing custody any children produced.
Religion and everything else are truly irrelevant and not the state's business.
So dodge the question. License any adult who wants to officiate marriages to do so without any mention of religion. What does religion have to do with it anyway? The officiant's contribution to the process is really only to verify that the two people signing the certificate have given consent, get the witness signatures and ensure that a copy of the certificate makes it back to the appropriate registrar.
Don't point just to the visible head. Probably were more people involved in that decision/actions and that are still active (or even still profitting from other, more recent, conflicts).
Most of those people showed up again in prominent roles during the Reagan administration.
What I want to know is, ok, I see a plane and I have a laser pointer and I am an asshole... with all of those things, I can't fathom how you are going to hit the cockpit of a moving plane tens of thousands of feet away.
10s of thousands of feet away is not the problem. The problem is when the asswipe is off the end of the runway lighting you up as you try to land.
Slashdot Mirror
A computer is not a car, nor is it a dog. But it's more like the car than the dog. It does not go do things by itself without human intervention. The human who commands it to do the illegal thing should be the only one held responsible. Holding individual owners responsible for staying ahead of an ever-increasing threat is absurd.
Can we stop with the mentioning of DDOS and security in the same breath as if they were related?
True, but my company sez I have to set a PIN if I want to see my corporate email on my phone.
It took time because of the mountain of deferred security work. Same thing for Apple but before anybody writes them off, check out the mountain of money piled up to their chins.
Science has proven light can exist without a source.
Funny that you mock it.
Because that's exactly what Science teaches as part of the big bang theory.
No other creation myths say that light came first.
you missed the part where there was a dark Earth before there was light.
He doesn't have to accept losing. If someone competent in Hebrew and science takes him up, he's going to lose that money unless he has a biased judge.
As a Catholic, disproving the Bible means little to me since it is only a part of my faith, not the whole foundation of it. Protestants however must frantically fight to prove the book entirely correct because of their subscription to the sola scriptura heresy which separates them from Catholicism.
To me, Genesis is a collection of myths with a spiritual truth to be discerned from them. They are instructive stories, not a literal chronicle of events.
And the funny part of that is that Catholics wrote and edited the bible before the Protestants got hold of it.
Well, do they feel the breeze on their testes? I think the rest of it goes without saying for any religion, unreligion or non religion. None of it detracts or corrects my view that Athiests are the worst proselytizers of the lot. Point?
whatever you choose to believe.
No. Most christians are. Or most insert least favourite ideology here.
Considering the fact that we are discussing Atheist Shoes, I'd say that is being pretty preachy. Your point about confirmation bias is valid though but I think that part of the problem that atheists in general tend to suffer from is that the noisy ones are making difficult for everyone else. This of course, is the same problem that most of the religions in the world tend to suffer from.
The companion experiment would be to package some shoes in "Christian Shoes" boxes. It's pretty clear from the experiment that some Prayer Warrior saw the labels and responded by delaying or stealing the packages. "I wonder what kind of depraved shoes atheists wear???"
The job description for Christian is to spread the word. Atheists have no such commission, strictly voluntary. Also, the definition of Christian is used pretty damn loosely around here. Most claiming Christianity aren't. They just claim it because they attend church or got dunked in a baptismal pool at some time or another. There is no Christianity in their life outside the church, but they tell themselves they are Christians and gain an unworthy sense of superiority by holding others up to their " standard", whatever that is.
I suppose they are also not true Scotsmen? Maybe you're forgetting about that business about Christians being chosen by God to receive grace and the rest of us going to hell because only Christians are purified from sin. They're better than us because God made them that way. They don't explicitly teach the "better than us" narrative, but it's there between the lines for anyone to read.
The same way they prove any conspiracy.
How hard would it be to pass a 3D printed gun through a metal detector? How hard would it be to make ceramic bullets to be fired from those guns?
In my previous comment I copied and pasted the first sentence word for word from the Wikipedia article so that you could interpret it. I have already interpreted it, and my initial comment in this thread was almost exactly the same. Allow me to post the first sentence from the Wikipedia article again (so that you can interpret it again ), since you clearly think my one sentence is/was totally off base:
Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of capital goods and the means of production, with the creation of goods and services for profit.[1][2] Elements central to capitalism include capital accumulation, competitive markets, and a price system.....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism
That much is correct.
Now, allow me to post my original comment (which I again re-posted in my last comment so that you could compare both), in order to tell whether or not I have misinterpreted the Wikipedia statement (I hate being repetitive, but don't tell me I am misinterpreting the english language when you aren't even reading my comments):
In Capitalism each agent within the system maintains private ownership over its belongings, and has the freedom to choose its activities within the system.
Are you really going to sit here and tell me I egregiously misinterpreted what was written on Wikipedia? Like, actually?
Yes. The second clause of that sentence is false.
I wouldn't put so much faith in a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia articles vary wildly in quality. Apparently the one you're quoting is poorly written unless you're misrepresenting it. Communism and Capitalism are complex subjects. The first thing you should understand is that between them, they don't exhaust all the possibilities by a long shot.
CAPITALISM is an economic system wherein the role of CAPITAL is paramount. What you described is called "private property" and existed literally AGES before the rise of anything called Capitalism. In a CAPITALIST SYSTEM, major industry is the owned and controlled principally by people whose contribution to the industry is their investment of CAPITAL, i.e. money, property, plant and equipment. You should recognize that our economy in the USA is like that.
The labor to run that industry is not the doing of the capitalists. They purchase or contract it from others who do not have sufficient capital to set themselves up in competition with the capitalist-owned enterprise, but have skills and time to sell.
An example of a non-capitalist system that has private property is subsistence farming. The farmer owns his own livestock, tools and land.
This is to be contrasted with sharecropping. A sharecropper doesn't own his own land. He labor for the capitalist who owns his farm. He may or may not own any of the tools and stock on the farm.
It is also to be contrasted with collective farming, where the farm, the tools and stock are owned by the collective. That is Communism straight up.
No, that is not capitalism.
Yes, ALeader71. You DO mouth of on social media sites. This one, for instance.
The problem isn't that antibiotics are used in animal husbandry. I have no problem with a vet prescribing antibiotics to save a sick cow or horse. Treat the cow the same way you would a human and it will be fine in a few days. The problem occurs when they chronically give antibiotics to a lot of animals that aren't sick. First, that's abuse of the drugs and the animals. Second, it doesn't kill off all the bacteria. It just gives a slight advantage to bacteria that are more resistant, thus creating the selection pressure to create resistant strains. Third, the antibiotics get in the milk and meat so resistant bacteria grow in that.
The law should say: (1) you can't give antibiotics to animals that are not sick (2) you can't sell edible animal products from animals that have been treated with antibiotics until after a waiting period (e.g. 10 days) to ensure that the antibiotics have cleared from their systems. (There would have to be randomized testing of products to enforce this.) (3) FDA clearance should be required to use drugs in animals at all and it wouldn't be given for classes of drugs that are needed to fight otherwise-resistant strains in humans.
You don't understand Communism. In Communism (not state Socialism like in the USSR but the kind Marx described), the workers own the means of production and control their own productivity. You and your computer are very much like that. Furthermore, Linux belongs to you with respect to how you can use it and modify it and to nobody in the sense that everybody can have as many copies as they want.
In Capitalism, the means of production belongs to financiers and say what you will and won't do with it.
It says right here in my textbook tha God created the universe 13.7 billion years ago.
The state is necessarily involved because it has to do with the ownership of joint property. Ownership of property is a legal thing and disputes over it are necessarily governed by the state.
With fertile hetero couples, this also extends to the state having a necessary interest in establishing custody any children produced.
Religion and everything else are truly irrelevant and not the state's business.
So dodge the question. License any adult who wants to officiate marriages to do so without any mention of religion. What does religion have to do with it anyway? The officiant's contribution to the process is really only to verify that the two people signing the certificate have given consent, get the witness signatures and ensure that a copy of the certificate makes it back to the appropriate registrar.
Don't point just to the visible head. Probably were more people involved in that decision/actions and that are still active (or even still profitting from other, more recent, conflicts).
Most of those people showed up again in prominent roles during the Reagan administration.
Maybe we should put laser-guided missiles on passenger jets. Home right in on those pointers.
What I want to know is, ok, I see a plane and I have a laser pointer and I am an asshole... with all of those things, I can't fathom how you are going to hit the cockpit of a moving plane tens of thousands of feet away.
10s of thousands of feet away is not the problem. The problem is when the asswipe is off the end of the runway lighting you up as you try to land.
Put the filters on the windows. Because of the angle problem, they'd have to be absorptive filters.