What logical fallacy? Right at this moment, the government is holding a US citizen without charge and thinks that it has every right to do so, yet there is no law anywhere that gives them this power. You think that we should all accept the government's assertions about this man without seeing any evidence to back it up whatsoever. Now, what is to keep them from doing the same to anyone if they can do it to him?
That doesn't matter one whit. The man is a US citizen and as such is entitled to his rights under the US constitution. If they have to lose an intelligence operation to convict him, that's too bad. Either charge him or let him go.
If they could prove that he was involved with anything, they would have done it by now. They don't want to put him on trial because they know they would lose. Your government is blatantly violating its own laws and you're calling someone who complains about it arrogant?!?
That's odd. I've been a professional programmer for 8 years, and have yet to come across a company that wanted anything written in C++, but there have been a few java projects along the way. As far as I can tell, nobody uses C++ except for learning.
Just like those stupid freaking "You'll never be able to be pulled over just for not wearing your seat belt" laws. People are just so amazingly gullible when it comes to the government doing things "for our own good."
Then vote for someone else already! You don't need to vote Libertarian, or Constitution Party, or even Green. Vote Daffy Duck for president, just stop with this stupid either/or shit already.
As far as anybody knows, LSD isn't harmful to the body in any way at all. Obviously, if you're messed up on it and do something stupid, that might hurt your body, but in and of itself it has no lasting physical effects whatsoever. Alcohol, OTOH, has various well-documented harmful effects on various parts of the body.
Time would pass normally for you, but for you any trip would seem instantaneous. It would literally take zero seconds your time to make any distance trip.
>That being said, evolution is as much a theory as creationism
But creationism is not even close to being as much a theory as evolution.
>and some may say it evolution relies on faith just as much (if not more) than creationism.
People who would say that have no ability whatsoever to judge what is going on around them. The facts are there for anyone to see. If you wish to ignore them because of your faith, feel free. Just don't act like your faith is a substitute for evidence.
Since time is a property of our universe, time-based concepts (like eternity or 'before') really have no relevance when talking about things that are outside our universe. Whether you want to say god created it or that it sprung out of some other dimensional space, time doesn't apply to this external thing.
We don't know, but this has nothing to do with evolution. It deals with what has happened to life since it began.
>Micro-evolution is what is commonly accepted and should be taught, but where did macro-evolution come from
There is absolutely no difference between 'micro-evolution' and 'macro-evolution'. They are exactly the same process, just on different timescales.
>and why shouldn't valid alternatives be proposed with the condition that NONE currently meet the requirement of being proven scientifically?
Maybe because there is no such thing as 'proven scientifically'. There is one theory that has so much supporting evidence behind it that nothing else even comes close to being in the same standing. ID is not a valid alternative, since it has *no* supporting evidence unless you consider incomprehension to be evidence.
What's even worse is that Adam and Eve couldn't have known that disobeying god was wrong *before* they ate from the tree. They had no knowledge of good or evil. It's like handing a toddler a loaded gun and telling it not to shoot anything.
>I'm curious, what would be the psychological evaluation of the/. copyright opposition crowd (considering that it seems to oppose the RIAA/MPAA, but supports copyright enforcement concerning GNU efforts)?
I can't speak for/., but if there were no copyright, there would be no need whatsoever for the GPL. Since copyright does exist in such a screwed up state, the GPL just seems like a commonsense response.
>I just get tired of the whole faceless corporations are evil and that's that argument.
In general, they are. They are non interested in the good of humanity, only making money. If a person dumped toxic waste somewhere that wound up giving half a town leukemia, he'd be on trial for murder. A corporation does it, and it might have to pay a fine.
>Corporations have problems (such as the issue of corporate governance) but absurd comparisons to psychopaths have got to go.
Why? They are psychopathically fixated on making money.
>The only right that the corporation has that individuals don't is limited liability
And they should not. If you own a piece of a company that goes belly up, you should have to pay their bills. If you are expecting the benefits of pooling resources, you should also take the risks.
Such corporations couldn't exist at all without the government giving them the legal right to exist. As a libertarian, the idea of giving a corportation any of the rights of a person is completely disgusting to me.
Proof by forceful assertion? We've already created simpleself-replicatingmolecules. If you have some magical theory of why such things couldn't form in nature, I'd love to hear it.
Slashdot Mirror
What logical fallacy? Right at this moment, the government is holding a US citizen without charge and thinks that it has every right to do so, yet there is no law anywhere that gives them this power. You think that we should all accept the government's assertions about this man without seeing any evidence to back it up whatsoever. Now, what is to keep them from doing the same to anyone if they can do it to him?
That doesn't matter one whit. The man is a US citizen and as such is entitled to his rights under the US constitution. If they have to lose an intelligence operation to convict him, that's too bad. Either charge him or let him go.
If they could prove that he was involved with anything, they would have done it by now. They don't want to put him on trial because they know they would lose. Your government is blatantly violating its own laws and you're calling someone who complains about it arrogant?!?
Wake up, fool.
That's odd. I've been a professional programmer for 8 years, and have yet to come across a company that wanted anything written in C++, but there have been a few java projects along the way. As far as I can tell, nobody uses C++ except for learning.
The first Evil Dead was the scariest movie I'd seen in my life a the time, though I was only about 15.
>Well, I think Tom Cruise could still get them into Scientology....
Where do you think they found him?
Just like those stupid freaking "You'll never be able to be pulled over just for not wearing your seat belt" laws. People are just so amazingly gullible when it comes to the government doing things "for our own good."
Then vote for someone else already! You don't need to vote Libertarian, or Constitution Party, or even Green. Vote Daffy Duck for president, just stop with this stupid either/or shit already.
>If this is true, why do the wealthy pay most of the taxes?
Because they make the most money? If the top 5% of earners make 80% of the income, why shouldn't they pay 80% of the taxes?
As far as anybody knows, LSD isn't harmful to the body in any way at all. Obviously, if you're messed up on it and do something stupid, that might hurt your body, but in and of itself it has no lasting physical effects whatsoever. Alcohol, OTOH, has various well-documented harmful effects on various parts of the body.
Time would pass normally for you, but for you any trip would seem instantaneous. It would literally take zero seconds your time to make any distance trip.
>That being said, evolution is as much a theory as creationism
But creationism is not even close to being as much a theory as evolution.
>and some may say it evolution relies on faith just as much (if not more) than creationism.
People who would say that have no ability whatsoever to judge what is going on around them. The facts are there for anyone to see. If you wish to ignore them because of your faith, feel free. Just don't act like your faith is a substitute for evidence.
Since time is a property of our universe, time-based concepts (like eternity or 'before') really have no relevance when talking about things that are outside our universe. Whether you want to say god created it or that it sprung out of some other dimensional space, time doesn't apply to this external thing.
JonKatz, is that you?!?
>Where in animal evolution did the eye develop?
It has developed many times, maybe originally in something like this.
>Where are the fossils of non-vertebrate to vertebrate creatures
right here.
>Where did gender come into play?
Possibly 2.5 to 3.5 billion years ago.
>When did we evolve from chemicals to bacteria?
We don't know, but this has nothing to do with evolution. It deals with what has happened to life since it began.
>Micro-evolution is what is commonly accepted and should be taught, but where did macro-evolution come from
There is absolutely no difference between 'micro-evolution' and 'macro-evolution'. They are exactly the same process, just on different timescales.
>and why shouldn't valid alternatives be proposed with the condition that NONE currently meet the requirement of being proven scientifically?
Maybe because there is no such thing as 'proven scientifically'. There is one theory that has so much supporting evidence behind it that nothing else even comes close to being in the same standing. ID is not a valid alternative, since it has *no* supporting evidence unless you consider incomprehension to be evidence.
>I have not seen any evidence that shows new traits having been added to a genome
Well then, you haven't looked hard enough!
What's even worse is that Adam and Eve couldn't have known that disobeying god was wrong *before* they ate from the tree. They had no knowledge of good or evil. It's like handing a toddler a loaded gun and telling it not to shoot anything.
>So this is the extent to which a corporation is considered a person... it's purely financial.
/. copyright opposition crowd (considering that it seems to oppose the RIAA/MPAA, but supports copyright enforcement concerning GNU efforts)?
/., but if there were no copyright, there would be no need whatsoever for the GPL. Since copyright does exist in such a screwed up state, the GPL just seems like a commonsense response.
Not so. "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."
>I'm curious, what would be the psychological evaluation of the
I can't speak for
>I just get tired of the whole faceless corporations are evil and that's that argument.
In general, they are. They are non interested in the good of humanity, only making money. If a person dumped toxic waste somewhere that wound up giving half a town leukemia, he'd be on trial for murder. A corporation does it, and it might have to pay a fine.
>Corporations have problems (such as the issue of corporate governance) but absurd comparisons to psychopaths have got to go.
Why? They are psychopathically fixated on making money.
>The only right that the corporation has that individuals don't is limited liability
And they should not. If you own a piece of a company that goes belly up, you should have to pay their bills. If you are expecting the benefits of pooling resources, you should also take the risks.
> I'm going to rain on your parade. Corporations/businesses exzisted LONG before government.
Trade existed before governments. Corporations did not.
>The government doesn't grant us anything.
True, but it does grant corporations existence. Human beings have rights, corporations do not.
>WE GRANT THE GOVERNMENT ITS RIGHTS. PERIOD!
How is this a contradiction to what I said above?
Such corporations couldn't exist at all without the government giving them the legal right to exist. As a libertarian, the idea of giving a corportation any of the rights of a person is completely disgusting to me.
>"nothing is impossible with enough money".
Come on! We're wasting 4-5 billion dollars a *month* in Iraq. Building this space elevator thingy is like a drop in the bucket.
>Replicators aren't standalone.
Proof by forceful assertion? We've already created simple self-replicating molecules. If you have some magical theory of why such things couldn't form in nature, I'd love to hear it.
One of mine's due today. Ain't no way it's going to be done 'on time'!
>I don't think there's any practical way to prevent the FBI from reading your computers based purely on commands you can issue to your computer
/var partition on a strongly-encrypted volume? "Gee officer, I can't seem to remember my passphrase. It must be corrupted."
How about keeping your