Regardless of whether you pay "market price" or "higher than market price", you're still paying money to quote members of which fund and breed terrorists unquote. Want to dry up the funding for terrorist organizations ? Here's one place to start. Damn straight! Let's dry up the funding for terrorists by cutting our imports from at least the top two countries that we import oil from. Those lousy terrorist Canadians and Mexicans! That'll teach them!
In what other profession do people work for free? And don't mention law or medicine, because in those fields they volunteer services on an individual basis. How is OSS not 'volunteering services on an individual basis'? I think it is very analogous to pro bono law work, except that it makes more sense because it provides a tangible benefit to the person doing it (they get the end result). Most software developers (that get into OSS) love coding, so that is the biggest benefit that they get from it (pay comes second). OSS has the advantage that no one is forcing you to do it if you don't want to. (unless you feel the need to pimp out your resume)
Personally I don't do any OSS stuff because I prefer having external direction for my coding. I enjoy the process of turning someone's half-formed ideas into a realization of what they actually need. I don't really need anything specific myself so I get my satisfaction from work, but I can understand the rationale.
I think the problem is that the popular definition of theory is quite different from the scientific definition. Calling it "just a theory" in the popular terms undercuts what it is and tries to leave in some "wiggle room" for Intelligent Design, which is really "just a hypothesis", but it is often presented as a fact. Except that ID isn't a scientific hypothesis, a hypothesis has to be disprovable. It is an 'idea' or a 'notion' or a 'doctrine'...
In my thinking (and I believe the Church's), humanity is an ontological state. That is, there is no way to become human, and there is no way to become unhuman, other than creation or destruction. Thus, a human person is indeed a human person from the moment of their creation, which is conception. To argue otherwise is to say that there is some matter (the fetus), which becomes human some time before it is born. I don't see how you can philosophically hold that argument. This is why the Church holds onto the concept that any abortion or embryonic stem cell research is wrong: not out of blind doctrine but because of a long history of philosophical and theological reasoning. Technically, at what point does the disparate sperm and egg become a human? Is fertilization instantaneous? It seems to be that there is always something there before, that undergoes a transformation to become human. Why is it philosophically problematic to say that happens later in the process (or for that matter earlier, is a sperm human?)?
If you agree with that statement then obviously any research that can lead to the destruction of that life is wrong; it is basically murder of a fellow, and absolutely helpless, human being. So you support stopping almost all research? I can't think of an avenue of research that can't lead to the destruction of life. Even assuming you amend the statement to an equally accurate (but more compelling) 'research that requires the destruction' you are assuming that the one absolutely helpless human being is worth more than the untold number of people who can be saved by the research you are condemning. And that is assuming that you consider a lump of cells a human being.
If we can do the same research without destroying embryos, I would support that. But how many people will die in the lag time before we get there? In the calculus of existence, how much is one embryo worth? Are they worth more or less once they get older and die from some disease that would be curable if we had experimented more with embryonic stem cells earlier?
-- Why, yes, I am a compulsive devil's advocate. Why do you ask?
I find it interesting that I can be in the 'flow' with multitasking. There needs to be enough things going on at once, but once there are about 4 or more competing things at once I hit the zone for multitasking and start switching state in a highly efficient manner (and it is a great rush).
At one thing to do, I can focus very well. Two things to do and I am ok. Three things, I am totally useless. Four, I'm back to pretty good. Five or more and I go into hyper-multitasking mode. It is like hydroplaning, once I get to the critical speed, I skip from one thing to the next effortlessly and can devote my full concentration to each thing in rapid succession.
The end result is that I am very good at dealing with total chaos, and very good at dealing with a totally calm environment. It is just in between that it starts to get problematic. Once I am into chaos-mode, it pretty much feels like the description of being in the 'flow' and it is euphoric.
Since no one else has responded, I'll give it a whirl.
I believe they are using the mix of Carbon12 and Carbon14 to determine the source of the CO2. Basically they are using Carbon Dating to find the age of the CO2 to find the source for it (or at least a ratio of sources). Volcanic CO2 is also from non-living sources and so is considered 'fossil' in this context, since it will have the same mix of C12 and C14 (the ratio is maintained in living creatures). I believe they are figuring the amount of CO2 we are producing by looking at the power we are generating (not really sure on this one).
Methane is a different greenhouse gas (that is significantly more effective than CO2, but also is in FAR less concentration). So it goes into a different bucket basically...
As far as 'an unbiased resource out there that actually has documented facts about this issue that a layman could look at', if you find one, let me know. So far I am unconvinced by either side, I've seen LOTS of appeals to authority and bad science (from both sides) but nothing that actually sounds convincing to me (or at least a similar number of 'good points' from each side).
The single biggest reason for there not being more plane hijackings is that the passengers won't let it happen any more. 9/11's success is the limiting factor; now that we know that we will not survive the hijacking, we have no incentive to go along. You cannot control 150 people with 10 if the 150 refuse to be controlled.
Using the "There hasn't been another attack, so it is working" argument really falls down when there hadn't been an attack like that before either. During the time there was NO security at all, there had never been a hijacked plane flown into a building so evidence suggests that no security is actually more effective.
Terrorism was the number one cause of death in the US for less than a week (closer to 3 days really). It was passed by Americans killing themselves by a month and a half (murder took about 2.5) and was out of the top 20 causes of death in about 3 months. If you are supporting spending huge money (both in direct cost and delays/inconvenience) to stop terrorism, how much are you wanting to spend to stop Nephritis or Septicemia, which each individually kill about 10 times as many (and I had never heard of before I started researching this)? (http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/leadcaus10.html)
[quote]However, I have no patience or respect for those who choose to ignore the existence of problems either by pretending they don't exist or pretending they don't matter (acts of bad faith made to avoid confronting the conscious moral choice), which by extension asserts that the people so affected also do not matter when it comes right down to it. That is a self-deception which has the added demerit of also hurting others.[/quote]
How do you know that you are right that something IS a problem and the other person is wrong in thinking that there is not a problem. There is no surer way to create a problem then to try and solve something that is NOT a problem.
'The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.' Bertrand Russell (1872 - 1970)
[quote]Sounds like a kid who is determined to make your life miserable. Refusing to turn in completed homework is his only feeble attempt at civil disobedience, and then you drug him to compliance. One flew over the cuckoo's nest.[/quote]
This is interesting to me, since I had the same problem as this kid in college. Doing my homework (physics labs were the worst) and just forgetting to turn it in. I didn't 'refuse' I just forgot... alot. I was also pretty depressed at that time, so I'm not sure if it is ADD or depressions/self-destruction as a cause. I do have to pay attention to where I sit in bar/restauants, since if there is a TV in my field of view I cannot reliably hold a conversation with anyone.
Nowadays I self-medicate with caffiene and deal with it pretty well, but I wouldn't assume that the homework this is 'civil disobedience'...
What about when they easily bypass the security in place and you are inconvenienced, then killed.
Personally I would rather be not incovenienced and pretty safe (which is what I would be without the insane security) rather than inconvenienced and pretty safe (which is what I am now). Terrorists have almost exactly the power you give them. Even at its most successful, terrorism was the number 1 cause of death in the US for about a day and a half; By the end of 3 months it was out of the top 20. Where is your terror of Septicemia (31,926 deaths in 2001) or Nephritis (39,346 deaths in 2001)
Actually, any fascist that is an actual threat would take a look at how Fascists have successfully taken over states. The most successful, namely Hitler, did it through legal(ish) means, through the existing governmental systems, ie democratic change (then the one of the first things he did was enact severe gun control laws). Hitler had tried taking over the government using 'armed thugs', but it landed his ass in jail.
At best 'armed thugs' are a way to scare the populace into not fighting your takeover and that requires a large outlay of thugs.
That being said, I don't really care either way in terms of gun control; It is a right I will never use myself and guns are too entrenched in America to get them out of the hands of criminals anyway. (I wonder at what level is weaponery outside of the needs of civilized society, can I walk around with knives?)
I think that America is clearly becoming more fascist and orwellian (though it isn't really that bad yet), and is using the bugaboo of terrorists to do it. If the terrorists ever manage to do something truly catastrophic (nuking an city for example, something that would make 9/11 look like a stubbed toe) it would pretty much be game over for America and I couldn't really blame us for it...
To illustrate it with another popular bullshit question, the "what's your biggest deffect?" used to be all the rage, and probably still is in a lot of places. So people starting getting rejected as liars when everyone started saying "I'm a perfectionist." It must be a lie, right? Ironically I always answer that question with 'I'm pathalogically honest. Meaning that I am honest even when I'm not supposed to be.' Which has cost me at least one potential job offer that I know of. But at least it's honest...
You know what the best old-school RPG was last generation? Gladius. Especially with the swing meter turned off. Good old fashioned party-based RPG goodness. And with swing meters off Secutors rock!
Slashdot Mirror
Based on the synopsis, I'm seeing more of The Village myself.
Personally I don't do any OSS stuff because I prefer having external direction for my coding. I enjoy the process of turning someone's half-formed ideas into a realization of what they actually need. I don't really need anything specific myself so I get my satisfaction from work, but I can understand the rationale.
If we can do the same research without destroying embryos, I would support that. But how many people will die in the lag time before we get there? In the calculus of existence, how much is one embryo worth? Are they worth more or less once they get older and die from some disease that would be curable if we had experimented more with embryonic stem cells earlier?
-- Why, yes, I am a compulsive devil's advocate. Why do you ask?
I find it interesting that I can be in the 'flow' with multitasking. There needs to be enough things going on at once, but once there are about 4 or more competing things at once I hit the zone for multitasking and start switching state in a highly efficient manner (and it is a great rush).
At one thing to do, I can focus very well. Two things to do and I am ok. Three things, I am totally useless. Four, I'm back to pretty good. Five or more and I go into hyper-multitasking mode. It is like hydroplaning, once I get to the critical speed, I skip from one thing to the next effortlessly and can devote my full concentration to each thing in rapid succession.
The end result is that I am very good at dealing with total chaos, and very good at dealing with a totally calm environment. It is just in between that it starts to get problematic. Once I am into chaos-mode, it pretty much feels like the description of being in the 'flow' and it is euphoric.
Since no one else has responded, I'll give it a whirl.
I believe they are using the mix of Carbon12 and Carbon14 to determine the source of the CO2. Basically they are using Carbon Dating to find the age of the CO2 to find the source for it (or at least a ratio of sources). Volcanic CO2 is also from non-living sources and so is considered 'fossil' in this context, since it will have the same mix of C12 and C14 (the ratio is maintained in living creatures). I believe they are figuring the amount of CO2 we are producing by looking at the power we are generating (not really sure on this one).
Methane is a different greenhouse gas (that is significantly more effective than CO2, but also is in FAR less concentration). So it goes into a different bucket basically...
As far as 'an unbiased resource out there that actually has documented facts about this issue that a layman could look at', if you find one, let me know. So far I am unconvinced by either side, I've seen LOTS of appeals to authority and bad science (from both sides) but nothing that actually sounds convincing to me (or at least a similar number of 'good points' from each side).
The single biggest reason for there not being more plane hijackings is that the passengers won't let it happen any more. 9/11's success is the limiting factor; now that we know that we will not survive the hijacking, we have no incentive to go along. You cannot control 150 people with 10 if the 150 refuse to be controlled.
Using the "There hasn't been another attack, so it is working" argument really falls down when there hadn't been an attack like that before either. During the time there was NO security at all, there had never been a hijacked plane flown into a building so evidence suggests that no security is actually more effective.
Terrorism was the number one cause of death in the US for less than a week (closer to 3 days really). It was passed by Americans killing themselves by a month and a half (murder took about 2.5) and was out of the top 20 causes of death in about 3 months. If you are supporting spending huge money (both in direct cost and delays/inconvenience) to stop terrorism, how much are you wanting to spend to stop Nephritis or Septicemia, which each individually kill about 10 times as many (and I had never heard of before I started researching this)? (http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/leadcaus10.html)
[quote]However, I have no patience or respect for those who choose to ignore the existence of problems either by pretending they don't exist or pretending they don't matter (acts of bad faith made to avoid confronting the conscious moral choice), which by extension asserts that the people so affected also do not matter when it comes right down to it. That is a self-deception which has the added demerit of also hurting others.[/quote]
How do you know that you are right that something IS a problem and the other person is wrong in thinking that there is not a problem. There is no surer way to create a problem then to try and solve something that is NOT a problem.
'The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.'
Bertrand Russell (1872 - 1970)
Won't someone think of the processes?!?!? And all the little child processes they have spawned?
[quote]Sounds like a kid who is determined to make your life miserable. Refusing to turn in completed homework is his only feeble attempt at civil disobedience, and then you drug him to compliance. One flew over the cuckoo's nest.[/quote]
This is interesting to me, since I had the same problem as this kid in college. Doing my homework (physics labs were the worst) and just forgetting to turn it in. I didn't 'refuse' I just forgot... alot. I was also pretty depressed at that time, so I'm not sure if it is ADD or depressions/self-destruction as a cause. I do have to pay attention to where I sit in bar/restauants, since if there is a TV in my field of view I cannot reliably hold a conversation with anyone.
Nowadays I self-medicate with caffiene and deal with it pretty well, but I wouldn't assume that the homework this is 'civil disobedience'...
Do you really want to figure out how to make the Alliance live LONGER? They already breed like rabbits.
In general, humans are immature. I would venture a guess that ANY group of them that is large enough can be described in similar terms.
What about when they easily bypass the security in place and you are inconvenienced, then killed.
Personally I would rather be not incovenienced and pretty safe (which is what I would be without the insane security) rather than inconvenienced and pretty safe (which is what I am now). Terrorists have almost exactly the power you give them. Even at its most successful, terrorism was the number 1 cause of death in the US for about a day and a half; By the end of 3 months it was out of the top 20. Where is your terror of Septicemia (31,926 deaths in 2001) or Nephritis (39,346 deaths in 2001)
Actually, any fascist that is an actual threat would take a look at how Fascists have successfully taken over states. The most successful, namely Hitler, did it through legal(ish) means, through the existing governmental systems, ie democratic change (then the one of the first things he did was enact severe gun control laws). Hitler had tried taking over the government using 'armed thugs', but it landed his ass in jail.
At best 'armed thugs' are a way to scare the populace into not fighting your takeover and that requires a large outlay of thugs.
That being said, I don't really care either way in terms of gun control; It is a right I will never use myself and guns are too entrenched in America to get them out of the hands of criminals anyway. (I wonder at what level is weaponery outside of the needs of civilized society, can I walk around with knives?)
I think that America is clearly becoming more fascist and orwellian (though it isn't really that bad yet), and is using the bugaboo of terrorists to do it. If the terrorists ever manage to do something truly catastrophic (nuking an city for example, something that would make 9/11 look like a stubbed toe) it would pretty much be game over for America and I couldn't really blame us for it...
Don't forget your truly vicious oxygen addiction. The withdrawl symptoms of that are dreadful...
Death isn't considered the worst possible outcome in the Japanese culture, and suicide is not a mortal sin.
The game is still too easy tho.
Actually, it's the same for most organizations that are populated by humans. The 'Us VS Them' meme kicks in and it is all over.
That is interesting. I basically just go on the assumption that everyone is a fuckin nut job. I know I am.
I think the problem is that you assume 'fuckin nut job' is a bad thing. You shouldn't be so quick to judge.
You should say "Wow, I'd kill to read this kid's essay!"
But what will CmdrTaco do when he is NEVER allowed to come up with headlines?