Is this some sort of performance art piece? Like you're making a political statement about how ignorant "Jane Q Public" is in science and critical thinking? If so, bravo.
I actually think you're a racist apologist, like I said, probably not an actual racist. You're so in love with (what you perceive to be) Japan that you will White Knight the entire country on the Internet. The fact that you pretend you have to research "waifu" and then conveniently leave out the rest of the paragraph that discusses the exact context in which I used it reinforces that belief that you are either a liar or delusional.
The fact that you "accuse" me of living in Japan or having some problem with Japanese people is laughable. If I had posted about my problem with a sexist Saudi culture not allowing women to drive would you have accused me of being a woman in Saudi Arabia? Apparently that's the way shit works in your fucked up head. I'm sorry that the country of Japan has a long and well documented history of institutional racism. You can splutter sad, delusional excuses on the internet but that won't change reality. Cognitive dissonance is a bitch.
Now you're confusing the phenomenon of gravity with the Theory of Gravity. Gravity (the phenomenon) undeniably exists. It can be observed. The Theory of Gravity is based on falsifiable statements that could, some day no matter how incredibly unlikely, be demonstrated incorrect. Saying that "gravity is a creator fucking with us" is not valid because it could never be demonstrated to be incorrect.
Excuse me? I'm not the one who confused evidence with proof. They are not the same things. You wrote "there is no evidence", which is 100% false.
You are fundamentally confused about the topic at hand. I said there is no evidence that could falsify the hypothesis, which is true. There is plenty of evidence that, taken together makes the hypothesis incredibly unlikely, but that's not good enough and that's not the point. You've moved right past the hypothesis into testing. That's not how a hypothesis works. They must always be phrase in a falsifiable manner. We're still working on the first step, don't jumo ahead.
True, but you are still getting your standards of "proof" confused.
Umm, no. Standards of proof are irrelevant to anything I'm saying. I will explain this simply. When a hypothesis is formed, it must be formed in such a way there some circumstance could theoretically come to pass that would demonstrate it as false. "There is no other life in the universe" is a valid hypothesis. Finding other life would falsify it. "There is other life in the universe" is not a falsifiable hypothesis because you could never prove that no life existed anywhere in any form.
Aww, you sound butthurt at being called out for the shitstain racist apologist you are. You fail really fucking hard at guessing, too. But then again you seem to fail really fucking hard at life so it's not a surprise. Go back to watching anime and fantasizing about your "waifu",
Up util the mid 70's received huge amounts of funding from DARPA.
Is the government the ONLY one that spends on basic research with no immediate application? Absolutely NOT!
While this is technically still true, this isn't the mid-20th century anymore. That's the exception, not the rule. Keep in mind that that research funding came from an environment of high taxation leading to research being the best way to at least keep some benefit in house.
Yes. And now you're posting this long stream of bullshit to reinforce and prove it. That's great though. The more people are exposed to your unhinged ranting the faster you'll be recognized as a loon to be ignored or mocked.
Can I prove it wasn't created 10 minutes ago? No.
Exactly. No one can. Therefore it is not a valid hypothesis. A hypothesis must be falsifiable. It doesn't have to be falsifiable by you right now. A condition simply has to exist in which it could be. It is a very simple concept, yet tauntingly out of your grasp.
I was kind of hoping a grade school science class explanation would be simple enough for you.
You have zero fucking idea what you're talking about. "The Earth was created in situ 6,000 years ago" is not a falsifiable hypothesis. Here is an elementary school explanation that might not go over your head.
You cannot demonstrate that the entire Universe (let alone the Earth) was not created exactly as is just ten minutes ago. There is not a single piece of evidence that could falsity that hypothesis.
Are you retarded or just incredibly naive? There is no shared purpose. Do you think that the janitor at Consumer's Union is working there because he has a burning desire to advance consumer product safety? Or the IT guy is really glad they're lobbying for product labeling? No. They're working there because it's a fucking job. Just like everywhere else. The only people who are there specifically to further the goals of the organization are the higher ups. Just like any corporation.
If Japan starts killing foreigners in their country then ya, maybe they might have a racist problem,
Hey, dumbshit, there are plenty of people of non-Japanese ethnicity whose only home and citizenship is Japan through no fault of choice of their own. Perhaps you should look into how they're treated by Japanese society before you spew this mind-numbingly idiotic bullshit. The fact that you even thought that sentence was a reasonable thing to type blows my mind. Not even the "killing foreigners" part, but that fact that you qualified even that with a "might". Hell, I guess the US has no history of racism whatsoever. Thanks for that enlightenment, shitstain.
No they should not, because such things do not meet the criteria of a scientific hypothesis. We have and do invest funding into studying the origin of the Earth and life though. YEC and ID are not "science" and have no place in science.
Actually, that is untrue. First off, you ALWAYS have a duty to assist law enforcement if they ask. This is your duty as a member of the community. If you fail, and its severe enough, you could go to jail (obstruction of justice, accessory after the fact, etc, aiding and abetting) or get criminally sanctioned.
Bullshit. Prove it with a cite. You can't because you made it up. A private citizen has no duty to "assist" law enforcement in any way. Everything you listed involves actively hindering the police, not merely refusing to assist. A citizen has a duty to comply with certain instructions from law enforcement even when not being detained, but only very basic things like "leave this area". If you see a guy running around the corner with a TV and then a cop comes right by and asks "which way did he go?" you have zero obligation to say anything. That's why warrants and subpoenas exist.
Sigh. No. Not relevant. Employees of a non-profit still have the same employer/employee relationship as employees of a for-profit. No one feels their employer "represents their interests" and if they do they're incredibly naive. A corporation, profit or non-profit, represents its own interests. An employee of a non-profit has no more ability to influence the decisions of the organization than an employee of a non-profit. While it's true that they may work at a non-profit because they agree with the overall mission of the non-profit, that can easily hold true at a for-profit corporation as well.
You brought the motivation of the employees into it as if it were some sort of important factor, when its entirely irrelevant. I know plenty of people who work for non-profits who do so because it happens to be a decent job in their field. There's no particular difference between being an IT worker at Consumer's Union and being one at General Electric.
That's not what happened here. He was not ordered to "not close up shop". The contempt charge was from the time period in which he refused to turn over the keys. He ended up complying with the order to turn over keys by closing up shop.
Slashdot Mirror
Is this some sort of performance art piece? Like you're making a political statement about how ignorant "Jane Q Public" is in science and critical thinking? If so, bravo.
I actually think you're a racist apologist, like I said, probably not an actual racist. You're so in love with (what you perceive to be) Japan that you will White Knight the entire country on the Internet. The fact that you pretend you have to research "waifu" and then conveniently leave out the rest of the paragraph that discusses the exact context in which I used it reinforces that belief that you are either a liar or delusional.
The fact that you "accuse" me of living in Japan or having some problem with Japanese people is laughable. If I had posted about my problem with a sexist Saudi culture not allowing women to drive would you have accused me of being a woman in Saudi Arabia? Apparently that's the way shit works in your fucked up head. I'm sorry that the country of Japan has a long and well documented history of institutional racism. You can splutter sad, delusional excuses on the internet but that won't change reality. Cognitive dissonance is a bitch.
Now you're confusing the phenomenon of gravity with the Theory of Gravity. Gravity (the phenomenon) undeniably exists. It can be observed. The Theory of Gravity is based on falsifiable statements that could, some day no matter how incredibly unlikely, be demonstrated incorrect. Saying that "gravity is a creator fucking with us" is not valid because it could never be demonstrated to be incorrect.
Excuse me? I'm not the one who confused evidence with proof. They are not the same things. You wrote "there is no evidence", which is 100% false.
You are fundamentally confused about the topic at hand. I said there is no evidence that could falsify the hypothesis, which is true. There is plenty of evidence that, taken together makes the hypothesis incredibly unlikely, but that's not good enough and that's not the point. You've moved right past the hypothesis into testing. That's not how a hypothesis works. They must always be phrase in a falsifiable manner. We're still working on the first step, don't jumo ahead.
True, but you are still getting your standards of "proof" confused.
Umm, no. Standards of proof are irrelevant to anything I'm saying. I will explain this simply. When a hypothesis is formed, it must be formed in such a way there some circumstance could theoretically come to pass that would demonstrate it as false. "There is no other life in the universe" is a valid hypothesis. Finding other life would falsify it. "There is other life in the universe" is not a falsifiable hypothesis because you could never prove that no life existed anywhere in any form.
Aww, you sound butthurt at being called out for the shitstain racist apologist you are. You fail really fucking hard at guessing, too. But then again you seem to fail really fucking hard at life so it's not a surprise. Go back to watching anime and fantasizing about your "waifu",
Elon Musk
Musk put about $100 million of his own money into SpaceX. $4-500 million has come from NASA.
Bell Labs
They closed up shop specifically because it was becoming impractical for private companies to make those big gains anymore.
xerox PARC
Up util the mid 70's received huge amounts of funding from DARPA.
Is the government the ONLY one that spends on basic research with no immediate application? Absolutely NOT!
While this is technically still true, this isn't the mid-20th century anymore. That's the exception, not the rule. Keep in mind that that research funding came from an environment of high taxation leading to research being the best way to at least keep some benefit in house.
And you say I am the one who has no clue? Really?
Yes. And now you're posting this long stream of bullshit to reinforce and prove it. That's great though. The more people are exposed to your unhinged ranting the faster you'll be recognized as a loon to be ignored or mocked.
Can I prove it wasn't created 10 minutes ago? No.
Exactly. No one can. Therefore it is not a valid hypothesis. A hypothesis must be falsifiable. It doesn't have to be falsifiable by you right now. A condition simply has to exist in which it could be. It is a very simple concept, yet tauntingly out of your grasp.
I was kind of hoping a grade school science class explanation would be simple enough for you.
You're spreading bullshit and lies, which is far more damaging.
You cannot demonstrate that the entire Universe (let alone the Earth) was not created exactly as is just ten minutes ago. There is not a single piece of evidence that could falsity that hypothesis.
Much like the homeless guy ranting incoherently on the street corner, you're the only one who understands or cares about what comes out of your mouth.
Are you retarded or just incredibly naive? There is no shared purpose. Do you think that the janitor at Consumer's Union is working there because he has a burning desire to advance consumer product safety? Or the IT guy is really glad they're lobbying for product labeling? No. They're working there because it's a fucking job. Just like everywhere else. The only people who are there specifically to further the goals of the organization are the higher ups. Just like any corporation.
If Japan starts killing foreigners in their country then ya, maybe they might have a racist problem,
Hey, dumbshit, there are plenty of people of non-Japanese ethnicity whose only home and citizenship is Japan through no fault of choice of their own. Perhaps you should look into how they're treated by Japanese society before you spew this mind-numbingly idiotic bullshit. The fact that you even thought that sentence was a reasonable thing to type blows my mind. Not even the "killing foreigners" part, but that fact that you qualified even that with a "might". Hell, I guess the US has no history of racism whatsoever. Thanks for that enlightenment, shitstain.
No they should not, because such things do not meet the criteria of a scientific hypothesis. We have and do invest funding into studying the origin of the Earth and life though. YEC and ID are not "science" and have no place in science.
Candidates are not allowed to have TV or radio advertising, or even put videos on the internet etc.
Everyone gets the same amount of free TV/radio/newspaper advertising, but the Internet restrictions have been lifted entirely.
You shouldn't.
Actually, that is untrue. First off, you ALWAYS have a duty to assist law enforcement if they ask. This is your duty as a member of the community. If you fail, and its severe enough, you could go to jail (obstruction of justice, accessory after the fact, etc, aiding and abetting) or get criminally sanctioned.
Bullshit. Prove it with a cite. You can't because you made it up. A private citizen has no duty to "assist" law enforcement in any way. Everything you listed involves actively hindering the police, not merely refusing to assist. A citizen has a duty to comply with certain instructions from law enforcement even when not being detained, but only very basic things like "leave this area". If you see a guy running around the corner with a TV and then a cop comes right by and asks "which way did he go?" you have zero obligation to say anything. That's why warrants and subpoenas exist.
Sigh. No. Not relevant. Employees of a non-profit still have the same employer/employee relationship as employees of a for-profit. No one feels their employer "represents their interests" and if they do they're incredibly naive. A corporation, profit or non-profit, represents its own interests. An employee of a non-profit has no more ability to influence the decisions of the organization than an employee of a non-profit. While it's true that they may work at a non-profit because they agree with the overall mission of the non-profit, that can easily hold true at a for-profit corporation as well.
You brought the motivation of the employees into it as if it were some sort of important factor, when its entirely irrelevant. I know plenty of people who work for non-profits who do so because it happens to be a decent job in their field. There's no particular difference between being an IT worker at Consumer's Union and being one at General Electric.
well that isn't this one because: http://www.raredvds.biz/Song_Of_The_South_DVD_1946_Ruth_Warrick_Bobby_p/song_south.htm [raredvds.biz]
That's a bootleg.
So buy one and have it media shifted it., that's pretty well understood to be fair use.
So, I'm to believe that you can be charged with contempt for not providing something that you don't have?
No. They wanted Lavabit's SSL keys.
That's not what happened here. He was not ordered to "not close up shop". The contempt charge was from the time period in which he refused to turn over the keys. He ended up complying with the order to turn over keys by closing up shop.
Those are some very fine hairs you're trying to split.
Who's selling a lawfully made copy of the film Song of the South and for how much?
Hundreds of people on eBay, for maybe $30-40 at the high end.
What the fuck is "corporate speech", dumbass?