Damn right it does. If trends for the last few hundred thousand years hold true today, we could be on the cusp of an ice age. Rapid heating preceeds rapid cooling in the data sets of the most recent ice ages. What happens next depends on where we are in the natural cycle. If we are near the tipping point we will see the temperature swing upward quickly then drop off even faster. Haven't the climatologists been talking about a rapid rise in the Earth's temperature? Generally, when we see that in the historical models an ice age is about to hit.
Actually, the cause is irrelevant. It will remain irrelevant until mankind is prepared for both global heating and global cooling on par with the worst of our historical estimations. In other words, until we have the capability to withstand a 200,000 year ice age (or runaway global heating for tha matter) without it destroying our civilization, we are flirting with extinction. Debating the cause of an avalanche that is heading straight for you is ill advised. Save yourself, then argue as much as you like. Similarly, we should focus on nothing else other than preparing for our own survival until our survival is assured.
We KNOW for a fact the earth warms and cools in cycles. It has been doing so for eons. Pointing fingers at CO2 won't matter one little bit when the next ice age hits. Nor will it matter when the earth decides to heat up again, as it has done since well before mankind existed. Our only intelligent, rational, and even sane option is to make sure mankind can withstand the effects of the worst nature has to offer. If we plan on staying on this planet for any significant period it is high time we started being a bit more proactive.
Of course, when was the last time you noticed mankind acting in a sane, rational, and intelligent way. Not to sound pessimistic, but based on what I have seen concerning this "global climate change" fiasco, I think we're all thoroughly and seriously fucked.
If the wording in the summary is accurate and "settling a debt" is prohibited what is to stop the sites from charging a "membership fee" or a "security deposit" before you gamble. Then they deduct the loss from the amount you have already deposited. The transaction is made before you actually owe anything so it's not "settling a debt."
The problem with your analogy is that "nature's funnel" is known to have operated at anywhere from, say, 0.1 liters to 4.0 liters in the past without any influence from mankind at all. Not only that, but logic dictates that it will continue to fluctuate with or without mankind digging his carbon stained fingers into it.
Consider that the world is nowhere near the coldest or warmest it has been. Another way to look at that factual statement is this: one day mankind will have to face not only global warming, but also global cooling. Therefore, if we want to maintain our present level of civilization, we should pursue a policy of adaptation to extreme (compared to today's rather mild climate) temperatures. Consider the irony of spending the next 50 years reducing mankind's carbon emissions to zero and then blammo, the climate changes 10 degrees because of natural cycles that have been happening since the earth cooled. Without preparation our survival as a species is in question.
So, the writing is on the wall, and the script is so large it fills the entirety of Earth's history. We can be sure beyond any doubt that the climate is going to change...ALOT. And, as the most technologically advanced species ever observed by humankind, we are our own best hope of saving ourselves from a return to the brutal, short, pointless lives of our ancestors (or worse!) In light of this our leaders have decided to...hmmm what is it they are doing again? Ahh yes, they are, as a whole, trying to pass the largest global tax increases in history, signing treaties could inhibit technologically advanced nations from continuing their development, rewriting laws to circumvent our rights, and crowing at the top of their lungs about how bad it is going to get if we don't "do something about it." None of that will save even one of our asses when the earth gets its next fever.
Trying to change the global temperature by reducing emissions is wasted effort. Its going to change anyway. Punishing the most advanced societies on Earth for industry (CO2) is counterproductive. "Going green" is tantamount to moving from the straw house to the one made of sticks. Asking our governments to "save us" is, apparently, a solution worse than the problem. Figuring out how to cope with and preparing for long-term, immutable, and extreme climate change is the proper, and the only intelligent, course of action at this point. Letting our politicians use the inevitable and inescapable fact of climate change as a means to restructure our lives, economies, and liberties as they see fit shows how incredibly fearful, stupid, weak, and shortsighted mankind can be. Also evident on the part of our governments is an avarice for power that is so consuming it would rather sacrifice our species' future than miss an opportunity to cash in.
The climate models, scientist's "consensus," green energy movement, tainted intentions of climate researchers and energy companies alike, and everything else being discussed now regarding the climate controversy is just bullshit. It really doesn't matter. What we do about climate change matters, and I don't mean reducing emissions. How we think about it matters, and I don't mean feeling good about recycling or guilty about driving an SUV. The only reason people are arguing about climate change is the proposed "solutions" are meaningless. Deep down, where truth and fear sleep, we know just how incredibly fucked we are when the change finally comes. The really tragic and horrible part is everyone is so preoccupied with human power struggles that no one is doing anything worthwhile about it.
Here's MY analogy: Mankind is standing on some train tracks. There is a giant train coming towards us from the north at 250 mph. Unfortunately, we lost the schedule so we don't know when it will arrive but we know its coming because we can feel it through the rails. You motherfuckers are arguing whether the best survival strategy is to run south down the tracks away from the train or pretend the train doesn't exist!
I would say the primary issue is that climatologists use computer models that are inacurate* and politicians are using these models to tax us, restrict commerce, justify transgressions against our freedoms, and restructure the world economy.
*By inacurate I mean that if you feed historical data into the models you cannot extrapolate results that match with previously observed temperatures going forward. The models consistently return temperatures that are higher than the observed temperatures for a given year, decade, etc.
The word you are emphasizing there is not emphasized the same way in the scripture. Nor does it mean what you are trying to say it means. Nor does the word image mean what you think it means.
Man refers to all mankind. Image refers to the only part of a man that really matters to diety, namely the thought-generating/decision-making part--the mind. The scriptures do go into specifics about this.
Maybe you misread what I wrote and maybe I didn't expound enough.
To elaborate: I didn't even get a full install. I would not consider an OS a "working" OS if it does not have drivers available for something as ubiquitous as a wireless network card.
Additionally, the friend of mine who was there doing the installation has set up, configured, maintained, and repaired literally thousands of linux systems for friends, relatives, and companies. As his experience vastly overshadows my own (and everyone else I know), I realized had I tried to work this out myself it would have been frustrating, even more time consuming, and utterly hopeless. In addition, it became clear if I wanted to have a working system I would have to go buy new hardware. Mind you, the hardware in question was already known to work flawlessly with another OS. If changing to a new OS requires me to replace working hardware I consider that a huge negative. I would count that OS as as insufficiently developed or simply inadequate to the task of running my system.
My experience with Linux is definitely not nil. I have had a redhat box before (much older distro) and at a previous job used linux machines for daily use. Those worked great for their intended purpose. However, Ubuntu did not. My install experience with Ubuntu was sufficiently problematic that it has led me to the conclusion it is not worth my time. Maybe if I had a bigger problem with windows it would be worth it to go buy some new hardware and spend a couple more hours installing and configuring Linux on my current pc. Also, as Ubuntu has been regularly touted as the easiest of Linux distros to install I didn't see the need to grab a new Fedora, Suse, or debian pack and bang my head against the wall anymore.
That being said, I would not be averse to the idea of buying a PC that had Linux pre-installed, provided it met with my requirements and all the hardware was working. I just don't want to spend three plus hours of time trying to fix something that isn't broke.
Lastly, I would say that if you have the temerity to invalidate an experience such as mine AND you represent Linux to a large number of people you would be part of the problem with Linux and its roadblocked hopes of desktop adoption. For instance, most companies that offer a product will see an experience such as mine as an opportunity to point out "Our driver support has improved drastically in recent months" or "maybe you could give us another try, things have changed" or even "what kind of card was it? Hmmm...have you checked again to see if drivers for that one are avialable yet?" Instead, you pretend I don't even exist and/or imply that my experience is worthless. You even do all this on a website that is centered around the idea of promoting Linux and open source programming. Poor representation and problem resolution, the bane of any idea or product, is apparently the norm for Linux, not the exception.
My best friend of 20 years is a linux/unix sysadmin and in his spare time sets up clusters with petabyte storage for universities, oil companies, physics labs, etc. He is a Linux zealot (lovably so, not the annoying kind) and has performed many OS conversions with friends and neighbors. So I buy a new windows vista box a year and a half a go and he says, "Lets dual boot it with Ubuntu!" To which I respond, "Great! I'll buy beer and pizza, you come over and set it up while I watch." I was genuinely excited about the prospect. I had heard Ubuntu was not only simple to install but also to use so I was definitely game.
The result? After three plus hours of unsucessfully plumbing the depths of the web for working wireless drivers, I released him from his obligation and we all get drunk. Later, I blow the partition off the drive and mentally assign Ubuntu and Linux in general to the "failed experiments" category.
Maybe the driver situation has improved, but just watching the lenghts that he had to go to made me realize that even the "easiest of all Linux OS systems" can still be a giant pain in the ass.
"Even people with DVRs are not fast forwarding through commercials as much as producers and advertisers feared. "
On that note, have you noticed that adds now have their logos posted on the screen for longer periods of time? Maybe its just me, but I swear that I cannow tell exactly which companies are advertising and what they are selling even when I fast forward through DVRed show commercials. I seem to remember it being a bit more difficult to recognize the ads before fast forwarding them became popular. Could the advertising companies be adapting their commercials to maintain impact and brand recognition in spite of the increase in fast forwarding?
Even more interststing is the old subliminal advertising meme. Could people be inadvertently subjecting themsleves to subliminal advertising by speeding past the commercials?
The new deal: Unconstitutional Defrauding states of independence and their constituents of their rights through centralization of federal powers: Unconstitutional Increasing scope and power of all branches of the federal government and their accomapnying beaurecracies: Unconstitutional Government run health care: Unconstitutional
And you are concerned with the consitutinal validity of traffic court? Cook your minnows. I'm looking for a larger pan, for there are much larger fish to fry.
More precisely: Don't we need to keep him locked up *longer*, since he has already succumbed to his genetic propensity for violence which denotes his mental faculties have been proven insufficient to the task of controlling his violent bio-chemical heritage?
Actually, now that I see it in black and white, yours is better.
"How is this train of thought any different for a theist? "If God's creations, enacting his will, then where does personal responsibility come into play?"
If there is one thing I cannot abide it is an atheist who has to resort to straw men to attack religion. As a spiritual person with intimate knowledge of the Bible I must say it is laziness, stupidity, or an incredible new combination of both traits that leads an atheist to malign religion for qualities it does not posess or things is does not say. There are literally millions of viable and vulnerable attack points and you have to make one up? Come on! Atheists are generally much, much smarter than that.
Ok, my beef is that every religious book in history points to the vast and often insurmountable (without divine help, tada!) disfunction between gods and men. No religious book ever written describes mankind as faithful enactors of the will of God. If they did there would be no central conflict between man and the unknowable infinite, and therefore no sitcom spinoffs. How the hell are you going to make a viable franchise like that?
You left out d) prevent predatory and/or destructive criminals from contacting potential targets of their societal unconscionable behavior.
As for items "a" and "b," many criminals do not see prison as a lesson or a deterrent. See the recidivism rate for confirmation of this.
And as for "symbolic atonement to society" I believe that this motivating principle, in its proper context, would lead to harsher sentences than "avenging the victim." A criminal, in a societal sense, violates not only the law but also the conventions that make society stable, predictable, and safe. Every time someone resorts to criminal behavior they are spitting in the face, figuratively speaking, of every law abiding person. They are practicing a level of selfish disregard for the foundations of law and civilization that makes narcissism look like philanthropic altruism. Furthermore, their actions affect us individually by destroying our freedom to live our daily lives without fear, as if we were the victims ourselves.
If you consider a criminal act as a transgression against the victims, and the government as the arbiter of justice for those victims, the punishment is limited to the scope of the victims' damages. If, however, we consider criminality as a societal issue we have to provide some way of equating the damage done to society with the punishment meted out. Shoplifting becomes a billion dollar crime due to cumulative losses, money spent on prevention, and shrinkage costs passed on to the rest of society. Violent crimes now have added punitive weight because of the fear they cause in unrelated individuals, the cost they incur in prevention (police patrols, lighting, CCTV, etc.), and the possibility of widespread racial tension if the victim and criminal are of different ethnic backgrounds.
Losing sight of the victim is a cognitive incongruence and an insult to logic. If atonement to society is the primary concern then the punitive action would include reimbursement to taxpayers for the expenses of trial, incarceration, past and future preventative measures, and untold social costs. This would quickly increase the cost (in dollars or time incarcerated) of a single crime to an absurd amount. However, if atonement is based on the suffering and injury of the victim it is proportionally linked with the criminal's own actions and thereby perspicuously equitable. Not only is removing accountability to the victim an affront to anyone who has ever been victimized, it also leads to methodologies of thought that are so malleable they could justify any conceivable punishment for a crime.
For instance, two people arrange a transaction to trade harmless produce for cash and other considerations. They have been conducting these transactions for many years and no one involved in these transactions, nor any of the many people who have subsequently received the produce for consumption, has complained, been harmed physically or financially, nor have they been unfairly coerced into participation. In spite of this flawless track record (which many legal companies could not compare to), the police witness the transaction and both seller and buyer spend the next 20 years in jail. The punishment is immense, ruining the lives of two people and wreaking untold devastation on their families. The crime? Sale of a controlled substance, marijuana. The victim? Nowhere to be found, but apparently the damage done to this victim is so great is merits wasting 40 years of human life even though a similar amount of the legal analogue (tobacco) would lead to far greater costs to society (medical), and far more people harmed or killed (lung cancer, emphysema, etc.)
That is the other problem with eliminating atonement to the victim from the system of jurisprudence. The courts make victims of those who have committed no harm. See laws that forbid certain sexual acts between consenting adults for more examples of how basing punishment and laws on society's need for atonement is complete bunk.
"I and my brownshirts will be able to sweep-in to the Congress..."
And just what makes you think that the current congressional brown shirts that have been working so dilligently to establish unshakable state control of every aspect of our lives from cradle to grave will step aside for the likes of you?
Also remember that even if something is extensively reviewed, rated highly, and loved by many it still may not be "up your alley" so to speak. Try before you buy is really the only way to make sure your dollars are well spent.
"If Joe can make a few bucks voting for Mr. A instead of Mrs. B, when he couldn't care less about the outcome of the election, why wouldn't he?"
This is my problem with parties that pin their election hopes on expanding social programs. A voter that will benefit from those programs sees dollars in their pocket and votes accordingly.
Apparently bribing a voter is ok, but only if you are using that vote to increase the scope and power of the government.
I have been told by some friends that they are returning to India because with what they earn in a middle level position at an engineering firm they will have disposable income, a spacious home, and servants. Yes, you read that right, servants.
So you pick:
1) High stress job, efficiency apartment, minimal disposable income.
2) Pimp crib, cash in your pocket, never have to fold laundry again.
"Two people might both be intelligent and perform well with tests. One of these might get on well with others, have good listening skills while the other is only interested in their own opinion. One may may be liked and respected by his team the other resented and ridiculed. How are these two even remotely identical?"
Answer: One is an upper level manager at your comapny and the other was laid off due to poor performance reviews citing gregarious fraternization with co-workers. Take a wild guess which is which.
The level of correlation is significant. However, it may not be as influential as you are thinking.
One way to interpret the results is that 50% (23% on french days and 27% on german days) of the buyers have a definite preference and are unswayed by the suggestive power of the music. The other 50% are subject to influence, of which 47.5% have no idea they are being influenced. The really interesting part is how effective something as subtle as music is at applying that influence.
At this point I would be interested to see if this works with other products, specifically excluding alcoholic beverages. I have the feeling there is some connection between music and alcohol consumption that makes this work so well. Also, an analysis of the same buyers over time/multiple buying expereinces and their level of correlation with the music would be interesting.
Private ownership is private and government ownership is government. Sounds like a simple case of plantiffs going after the deepest pockets and those most easily controlled through political and media manipulation.
"In the case of Dealer Track, I think that computer based credit application is simply an evolution of computer based forms processing. There is nothing new or non-obvious here."
Dealertrack essentially copied interface components and functionality already developed and in long use by automobile manufacturer's banks(GMAC, Honda financial services, BMWFS, etc.) The main differences I see with Dealertrack and say BMW's Infobahn website is Dealertrack displays the credit information and allows the user to send it to many different banks instead of just one.
I think the strength of their market share is directly proportional to the striking similarity of their system to what dealership finance personnel have been using for years through their captive finance sources. Prior art, anyone?
A truer statement was never made. However do not think that if someone from a church helps someone there is always a string attached, which is what it sounds like you are saying. For orthodox Christians motivation is the key issue in charity. The example being the person of Jesus Christ and the internal drive is to be like Him.
"No expectation of reciprocation, no subtle pressure to join the faith of those who provided the assistance."
Again, be aware that just being a christian (or other self identified operson of faith) is not "subtle pressure" in and of itself. True there are those that are overzealous in their pursuit of converts just as there are those who are overzealous in their criticism of people who belive in god, however just being a charitable Christian does not equate to pressure on those you help.
"Tell me: What is the difference between a Scientologist on the street giving someone a free E-meter test (their charitable work) and then inviting that person to join their church so that they can free themselves from their worries and you giving some food or clothing to someone and then inviting them to join your church so that they can free themselves of their worries? In the end, there is none."
You can't survive eating E-meters and you surely can't wear them in such a way as to protect you from the elements.
Slashdot Mirror
Damn right it does. If trends for the last few hundred thousand years hold true today, we could be on the cusp of an ice age. Rapid heating preceeds rapid cooling in the data sets of the most recent ice ages. What happens next depends on where we are in the natural cycle. If we are near the tipping point we will see the temperature swing upward quickly then drop off even faster. Haven't the climatologists been talking about a rapid rise in the Earth's temperature? Generally, when we see that in the historical models an ice age is about to hit.
Actually, the cause is irrelevant. It will remain irrelevant until mankind is prepared for both global heating and global cooling on par with the worst of our historical estimations. In other words, until we have the capability to withstand a 200,000 year ice age (or runaway global heating for tha matter) without it destroying our civilization, we are flirting with extinction. Debating the cause of an avalanche that is heading straight for you is ill advised. Save yourself, then argue as much as you like. Similarly, we should focus on nothing else other than preparing for our own survival until our survival is assured.
We KNOW for a fact the earth warms and cools in cycles. It has been doing so for eons. Pointing fingers at CO2 won't matter one little bit when the next ice age hits. Nor will it matter when the earth decides to heat up again, as it has done since well before mankind existed. Our only intelligent, rational, and even sane option is to make sure mankind can withstand the effects of the worst nature has to offer. If we plan on staying on this planet for any significant period it is high time we started being a bit more proactive.
Of course, when was the last time you noticed mankind acting in a sane, rational, and intelligent way. Not to sound pessimistic, but based on what I have seen concerning this "global climate change" fiasco, I think we're all thoroughly and seriously fucked.
If the wording in the summary is accurate and "settling a debt" is prohibited what is to stop the sites from charging a "membership fee" or a "security deposit" before you gamble. Then they deduct the loss from the amount you have already deposited. The transaction is made before you actually owe anything so it's not "settling a debt."
The problem with your analogy is that "nature's funnel" is known to have operated at anywhere from, say, 0.1 liters to 4.0 liters in the past without any influence from mankind at all. Not only that, but logic dictates that it will continue to fluctuate with or without mankind digging his carbon stained fingers into it.
Consider that the world is nowhere near the coldest or warmest it has been. Another way to look at that factual statement is this: one day mankind will have to face not only global warming, but also global cooling. Therefore, if we want to maintain our present level of civilization, we should pursue a policy of adaptation to extreme (compared to today's rather mild climate) temperatures. Consider the irony of spending the next 50 years reducing mankind's carbon emissions to zero and then blammo, the climate changes 10 degrees because of natural cycles that have been happening since the earth cooled. Without preparation our survival as a species is in question.
So, the writing is on the wall, and the script is so large it fills the entirety of Earth's history. We can be sure beyond any doubt that the climate is going to change...ALOT. And, as the most technologically advanced species ever observed by humankind, we are our own best hope of saving ourselves from a return to the brutal, short, pointless lives of our ancestors (or worse!) In light of this our leaders have decided to...hmmm what is it they are doing again? Ahh yes, they are, as a whole, trying to pass the largest global tax increases in history, signing treaties could inhibit technologically advanced nations from continuing their development, rewriting laws to circumvent our rights, and crowing at the top of their lungs about how bad it is going to get if we don't "do something about it." None of that will save even one of our asses when the earth gets its next fever.
Trying to change the global temperature by reducing emissions is wasted effort. Its going to change anyway. Punishing the most advanced societies on Earth for industry (CO2) is counterproductive. "Going green" is tantamount to moving from the straw house to the one made of sticks. Asking our governments to "save us" is, apparently, a solution worse than the problem. Figuring out how to cope with and preparing for long-term, immutable, and extreme climate change is the proper, and the only intelligent, course of action at this point. Letting our politicians use the inevitable and inescapable fact of climate change as a means to restructure our lives, economies, and liberties as they see fit shows how incredibly fearful, stupid, weak, and shortsighted mankind can be. Also evident on the part of our governments is an avarice for power that is so consuming it would rather sacrifice our species' future than miss an opportunity to cash in.
The climate models, scientist's "consensus," green energy movement, tainted intentions of climate researchers and energy companies alike, and everything else being discussed now regarding the climate controversy is just bullshit. It really doesn't matter. What we do about climate change matters, and I don't mean reducing emissions. How we think about it matters, and I don't mean feeling good about recycling or guilty about driving an SUV. The only reason people are arguing about climate change is the proposed "solutions" are meaningless. Deep down, where truth and fear sleep, we know just how incredibly fucked we are when the change finally comes. The really tragic and horrible part is everyone is so preoccupied with human power struggles that no one is doing anything worthwhile about it.
Here's MY analogy: Mankind is standing on some train tracks. There is a giant train coming towards us from the north at 250 mph. Unfortunately, we lost the schedule so we don't know when it will arrive but we know its coming because we can feel it through the rails. You motherfuckers are arguing whether the best survival strategy is to run south down the tracks away from the train or pretend the train doesn't exist!
I would say the primary issue is that climatologists use computer models that are inacurate* and politicians are using these models to tax us, restrict commerce, justify transgressions against our freedoms, and restructure the world economy.
*By inacurate I mean that if you feed historical data into the models you cannot extrapolate results that match with previously observed temperatures going forward. The models consistently return temperatures that are higher than the observed temperatures for a given year, decade, etc.
"Let me know when my government learns to do anything effectively besides KILLING"
And now you know precisely why I fear our government's persistent efforts to take over the MEDICAL SYSTEM.
The word you are emphasizing there is not emphasized the same way in the scripture. Nor does it mean what you are trying to say it means. Nor does the word image mean what you think it means.
Man refers to all mankind. Image refers to the only part of a man that really matters to diety, namely the thought-generating/decision-making part--the mind. The scriptures do go into specifics about this.
Maybe you misread what I wrote and maybe I didn't expound enough.
To elaborate: I didn't even get a full install. I would not consider an OS a "working" OS if it does not have drivers available for something as ubiquitous as a wireless network card.
Additionally, the friend of mine who was there doing the installation has set up, configured, maintained, and repaired literally thousands of linux systems for friends, relatives, and companies. As his experience vastly overshadows my own (and everyone else I know), I realized had I tried to work this out myself it would have been frustrating, even more time consuming, and utterly hopeless. In addition, it became clear if I wanted to have a working system I would have to go buy new hardware. Mind you, the hardware in question was already known to work flawlessly with another OS. If changing to a new OS requires me to replace working hardware I consider that a huge negative. I would count that OS as as insufficiently developed or simply inadequate to the task of running my system.
My experience with Linux is definitely not nil. I have had a redhat box before (much older distro) and at a previous job used linux machines for daily use. Those worked great for their intended purpose. However, Ubuntu did not. My install experience with Ubuntu was sufficiently problematic that it has led me to the conclusion it is not worth my time. Maybe if I had a bigger problem with windows it would be worth it to go buy some new hardware and spend a couple more hours installing and configuring Linux on my current pc. Also, as Ubuntu has been regularly touted as the easiest of Linux distros to install I didn't see the need to grab a new Fedora, Suse, or debian pack and bang my head against the wall anymore.
That being said, I would not be averse to the idea of buying a PC that had Linux pre-installed, provided it met with my requirements and all the hardware was working. I just don't want to spend three plus hours of time trying to fix something that isn't broke.
Lastly, I would say that if you have the temerity to invalidate an experience such as mine AND you represent Linux to a large number of people you would be part of the problem with Linux and its roadblocked hopes of desktop adoption. For instance, most companies that offer a product will see an experience such as mine as an opportunity to point out "Our driver support has improved drastically in recent months" or "maybe you could give us another try, things have changed" or even "what kind of card was it? Hmmm...have you checked again to see if drivers for that one are avialable yet?" Instead, you pretend I don't even exist and/or imply that my experience is worthless. You even do all this on a website that is centered around the idea of promoting Linux and open source programming. Poor representation and problem resolution, the bane of any idea or product, is apparently the norm for Linux, not the exception.
My Ubuntu experience:
My best friend of 20 years is a linux/unix sysadmin and in his spare time sets up clusters with petabyte storage for universities, oil companies, physics labs, etc. He is a Linux zealot (lovably so, not the annoying kind) and has performed many OS conversions with friends and neighbors. So I buy a new windows vista box a year and a half a go and he says, "Lets dual boot it with Ubuntu!" To which I respond, "Great! I'll buy beer and pizza, you come over and set it up while I watch." I was genuinely excited about the prospect. I had heard Ubuntu was not only simple to install but also to use so I was definitely game.
The result? After three plus hours of unsucessfully plumbing the depths of the web for working wireless drivers, I released him from his obligation and we all get drunk. Later, I blow the partition off the drive and mentally assign Ubuntu and Linux in general to the "failed experiments" category.
Maybe the driver situation has improved, but just watching the lenghts that he had to go to made me realize that even the "easiest of all Linux OS systems" can still be a giant pain in the ass.
"Even people with DVRs are not fast forwarding through commercials as much as producers and advertisers feared. "
On that note, have you noticed that adds now have their logos posted on the screen for longer periods of time? Maybe its just me, but I swear that I cannow tell exactly which companies are advertising and what they are selling even when I fast forward through DVRed show commercials. I seem to remember it being a bit more difficult to recognize the ads before fast forwarding them became popular. Could the advertising companies be adapting their commercials to maintain impact and brand recognition in spite of the increase in fast forwarding?
Even more interststing is the old subliminal advertising meme. Could people be inadvertently subjecting themsleves to subliminal advertising by speeding past the commercials?
The new deal: Unconstitutional
Defrauding states of independence and their constituents of their rights through centralization of federal powers: Unconstitutional
Increasing scope and power of all branches of the federal government and their accomapnying beaurecracies: Unconstitutional
Government run health care: Unconstitutional
And you are concerned with the consitutinal validity of traffic court? Cook your minnows. I'm looking for a larger pan, for there are much larger fish to fry.
More precisely: Don't we need to keep him locked up *longer*, since he has already succumbed to his genetic propensity for violence which denotes his mental faculties have been proven insufficient to the task of controlling his violent bio-chemical heritage?
Actually, now that I see it in black and white, yours is better.
"How is this train of thought any different for a theist? "If God's creations, enacting his will, then where does personal responsibility come into play?"
If there is one thing I cannot abide it is an atheist who has to resort to straw men to attack religion. As a spiritual person with intimate knowledge of the Bible I must say it is laziness, stupidity, or an incredible new combination of both traits that leads an atheist to malign religion for qualities it does not posess or things is does not say. There are literally millions of viable and vulnerable attack points and you have to make one up? Come on! Atheists are generally much, much smarter than that.
Ok, my beef is that every religious book in history points to the vast and often insurmountable (without divine help, tada!) disfunction between gods and men. No religious book ever written describes mankind as faithful enactors of the will of God. If they did there would be no central conflict between man and the unknowable infinite, and therefore no sitcom spinoffs. How the hell are you going to make a viable franchise like that?
You left out d) prevent predatory and/or destructive criminals from contacting potential targets of their societal unconscionable behavior.
As for items "a" and "b," many criminals do not see prison as a lesson or a deterrent. See the recidivism rate for confirmation of this.
And as for "symbolic atonement to society" I believe that this motivating principle, in its proper context, would lead to harsher sentences than "avenging the victim." A criminal, in a societal sense, violates not only the law but also the conventions that make society stable, predictable, and safe. Every time someone resorts to criminal behavior they are spitting in the face, figuratively speaking, of every law abiding person. They are practicing a level of selfish disregard for the foundations of law and civilization that makes narcissism look like philanthropic altruism. Furthermore, their actions affect us individually by destroying our freedom to live our daily lives without fear, as if we were the victims ourselves.
If you consider a criminal act as a transgression against the victims, and the government as the arbiter of justice for those victims, the punishment is limited to the scope of the victims' damages. If, however, we consider criminality as a societal issue we have to provide some way of equating the damage done to society with the punishment meted out. Shoplifting becomes a billion dollar crime due to cumulative losses, money spent on prevention, and shrinkage costs passed on to the rest of society. Violent crimes now have added punitive weight because of the fear they cause in unrelated individuals, the cost they incur in prevention (police patrols, lighting, CCTV, etc.), and the possibility of widespread racial tension if the victim and criminal are of different ethnic backgrounds.
Losing sight of the victim is a cognitive incongruence and an insult to logic. If atonement to society is the primary concern then the punitive action would include reimbursement to taxpayers for the expenses of trial, incarceration, past and future preventative measures, and untold social costs. This would quickly increase the cost (in dollars or time incarcerated) of a single crime to an absurd amount. However, if atonement is based on the suffering and injury of the victim it is proportionally linked with the criminal's own actions and thereby perspicuously equitable. Not only is removing accountability to the victim an affront to anyone who has ever been victimized, it also leads to methodologies of thought that are so malleable they could justify any conceivable punishment for a crime.
For instance, two people arrange a transaction to trade harmless produce for cash and other considerations. They have been conducting these transactions for many years and no one involved in these transactions, nor any of the many people who have subsequently received the produce for consumption, has complained, been harmed physically or financially, nor have they been unfairly coerced into participation. In spite of this flawless track record (which many legal companies could not compare to), the police witness the transaction and both seller and buyer spend the next 20 years in jail. The punishment is immense, ruining the lives of two people and wreaking untold devastation on their families. The crime? Sale of a controlled substance, marijuana. The victim? Nowhere to be found, but apparently the damage done to this victim is so great is merits wasting 40 years of human life even though a similar amount of the legal analogue (tobacco) would lead to far greater costs to society (medical), and far more people harmed or killed (lung cancer, emphysema, etc.)
That is the other problem with eliminating atonement to the victim from the system of jurisprudence. The courts make victims of those who have committed no harm. See laws that forbid certain sexual acts between consenting adults for more examples of how basing punishment and laws on society's need for atonement is complete bunk.
"I and my brownshirts will be able to sweep-in to the Congress..."
And just what makes you think that the current congressional brown shirts that have been working so dilligently to establish unshakable state control of every aspect of our lives from cradle to grave will step aside for the likes of you?
Also remember that even if something is extensively reviewed, rated highly, and loved by many it still may not be "up your alley" so to speak. Try before you buy is really the only way to make sure your dollars are well spent.
"If Joe can make a few bucks voting for Mr. A instead of Mrs. B, when he couldn't care less about the outcome of the election, why wouldn't he?"
This is my problem with parties that pin their election hopes on expanding social programs. A voter that will benefit from those programs sees dollars in their pocket and votes accordingly.
Apparently bribing a voter is ok, but only if you are using that vote to increase the scope and power of the government.
Or that Starship Troopers was made into a movie at all.
I have been told by some friends that they are returning to India because with what they earn in a middle level position at an engineering firm they will have disposable income, a spacious home, and servants. Yes, you read that right, servants.
So you pick:
1) High stress job, efficiency apartment, minimal disposable income.
2) Pimp crib, cash in your pocket, never have to fold laundry again.
"Two people might both be intelligent and perform well with tests. One of these might get on well with others, have good listening skills while the other is only interested in their own opinion. One may may be liked and respected by his team the other resented and ridiculed. How are these two even remotely identical?"
Answer: One is an upper level manager at your comapny and the other was laid off due to poor performance reviews citing gregarious fraternization with co-workers. Take a wild guess which is which.
The level of correlation is significant. However, it may not be as influential as you are thinking.
One way to interpret the results is that 50% (23% on french days and 27% on german days) of the buyers have a definite preference and are unswayed by the suggestive power of the music. The other 50% are subject to influence, of which 47.5% have no idea they are being influenced. The really interesting part is how effective something as subtle as music is at applying that influence.
At this point I would be interested to see if this works with other products, specifically excluding alcoholic beverages. I have the feeling there is some connection between music and alcohol consumption that makes this work so well. Also, an analysis of the same buyers over time/multiple buying expereinces and their level of correlation with the music would be interesting.
Private ownership is private and government ownership is government. Sounds like a simple case of plantiffs going after the deepest pockets and those most easily controlled through political and media manipulation.
"In the case of Dealer Track, I think that computer based credit application is simply an evolution of computer based forms processing. There is nothing new or non-obvious here."
Dealertrack essentially copied interface components and functionality already developed and in long use by automobile manufacturer's banks(GMAC, Honda financial services, BMWFS, etc.) The main differences I see with Dealertrack and say BMW's Infobahn website is Dealertrack displays the credit information and allows the user to send it to many different banks instead of just one.
I think the strength of their market share is directly proportional to the striking similarity of their system to what dealership finance personnel have been using for years through their captive finance sources. Prior art, anyone?
I plan to provide free bath towels to Natalie Portman.
"True charity comes with no strings attached."
A truer statement was never made. However do not think that if someone from a church helps someone there is always a string attached, which is what it sounds like you are saying. For orthodox Christians motivation is the key issue in charity. The example being the person of Jesus Christ and the internal drive is to be like Him.
"No expectation of reciprocation, no subtle pressure to join the faith of those who provided the assistance."
Again, be aware that just being a christian (or other self identified operson of faith) is not "subtle pressure" in and of itself. True there are those that are overzealous in their pursuit of converts just as there are those who are overzealous in their criticism of people who belive in god, however just being a charitable Christian does not equate to pressure on those you help.
"Tell me: What is the difference between a Scientologist on the street giving someone a free E-meter test (their charitable work) and then inviting that person to join their church so that they can free themselves from their worries and you giving some food or clothing to someone and then inviting them to join your church so that they can free themselves of their worries? In the end, there is none."
You can't survive eating E-meters and you surely can't wear them in such a way as to protect you from the elements.