Ive never heard of anyone complaining that ID changes when new evidence is found. One of the big issues with ID is that they never change the theory, no matter what the evidence which means it is not a scientific theory.
Can someone explain why anyone cares that a common, stable, substance microscopically contaminates money? Why does anyone care? What does this supposed to mean? Is anyone actually freaking out?
Electric cars don't idle. When stopped they are only drawing power for accessories. If the A/C is off you can consider the car off and not drawing any power.
500 mile range? Most north American cars get about 300 miles to a tank. A Miata only get 300 miles to tank on the highway.
100 miles is about double what the average commuter needs for daily travel.
Electric cars don't "idle". In stop and go traffic they use virtually zero power during the stop phase. But it is true that A/C does use a fair bit of power to run the compressor.
Who cares if it is hard? It is that difficulty that should be making us want to do it!
What has happened to people! Is there no sense of adventure? Must everything have a cost benefit analysis done? The USA wouldn't have landed a man on the moon with you people in charge. Not everything we do must have an immediate and direct benefit to society. Not everything must make a buck. Some things should be done, just because we can, and it would a great thing to accomplish. Look, the USA spends more in a year making war than going to Mars would cost. Why is it ok to spend all that money killing, but not ok to do something noble, adventurous, and just plain cool.
Because we can. Because it is a new frontier. Because there are people who want to. Because society needs heroes. Because we need to stop living in fear of any and all risks.
I wants STUNTS, but the stunts I support. I want people walking on MARS!!!
Then I want to terraform Mars and colonize it. No, I don't want to ship hordes of people from Earth to Mars to "lessen population pressure". That idea is plain silly. I want to ship enough people and support to get a self sustaining colony going that will fill Mars up with people on its own.
Then the human race will have its eggs in TWO baskets.
The welfare state is not meant to keep people poor, but it inadvertently does that in some cases.
If the welfare benefits are higher than the benefits of working (in the USA having free medical while on welfare is worth a LOT) it makes no sense to work.
Welfare systems should include extra training and support for young people to help break the chain of poverty.
Numerous studies have shown that kids that grow up in families "on the dole" tend to grow up to be adults that collect "the dole" much more than other families. The most popular theory for this is a lack of good role models. If you grow up with parents who do not work, do not try to teach you the value of work, who are not well educated, and do not teach their children the value of education, often, not always, the child grows up thinking that going on "the dole" is just the way things are. Work is for some other class of people they can never belong to. Many children DO escape this life, often due to the influence of teachers, or relatives that do work.
In many places it has been found that working hard to break this cycle can work. Set welfare (dole) rates low enough to live on, but just barely. Anti-poverty activists will yell about a lack of dignity, but I'm of the firm opinion dignity comes form working. Do NOT make getting on welfare easy for children. Where I live you can't get on welfare as a child if your parents are alive and you are under 25. There are exceptions for cases where the parents are abusive. You have to do work training, and / or actively look for work if you are able. You cannot stay on full welfare for more than 2 years if you are able bodied. Then the welfare payments decrease.
Welfare should exist to help people out when they suffer a string of bad luck, or are handicapped and can't work. The rules for welfare should encourage working. For example, if it pays more than the minimum wage why would you work? If welfare rules claw back all your wages when you start working part-time, why would you work part time? Make it hard to get on welfare when people are young. Have separate systems that give extra support and training to break the cycle for young people.
The rest of the community, ie "society" doesn't have any rights. Only individuals have rights.
Every argument in favour of group rights is an argument against individual rights. It is always someone try to subvert an individuals rights in the name of "the greater good".
So while I support paying taxes to fund universal education, and health care, I don't pretend my supporting these taxes doesn't infringe on the rights of people who don't support these taxes. I am subverting individual rights to support my point of view. A very popular point of view where I live, but I don't pretend that imaginary "group rights" makes it all morally wonderful.
Yes, there are laws that are in place to make society better, and some of these laws infringe our individual rights. Society may decide to infringe basic rights for the "greater good", but don't pretend it ISN'T infringing individual rights. When you admit you are infringing individual rights I would hope you would be much more careful about infringing rights.
In this case I would say that installing these cameras goes way too far. It infringes basic rights to privacy, it involves a whole family, most of whose members are innocent of any crime. Group punishment is generally against the law. This is a case of a government wanting to show "it is doing something" and deciding camera's are a lot cheaper than hiring and paying social workers and police. They don't really expect this to help. They just want to be able to say to the voters, look, we tried.
In 1831 90% of the USA population worked on farms. Today that is less than 2%. As technology improved the number of people required to produce food has greatly diminished, and people were talking about the same problem these robots and AI's might cause. What would all the farm workers do! Most went to factories then the service sector.
The same story is told about virtually all technological progress, from seamstresses rioting over sewing machines, water powered mills, the steam engine, and the modern factory displacing cottage industry, pundits have shouted that there will be widespread unemployment, riots, pandering, and society will collapse!
They were all wrong.
Big changes do cause short term upheavals, and a truly intelligent AI mated with a general purpose robot will cause huge changes to society, but these changes will free people from boring manual labour to do more creative work. And the non-creative? They'll do their one days work, or one hour, or none, then watch tv just like they do now.
The 5 day work week was a radical change. Eventually technology will bring us the one day work week then no work. Trying to ban technology won't stop it. Society will be greatly different. I think overall people will be more free and happier when we live in a post-scarcity society.
I don't consider it consistent to demand you kill children who talk back to their parents in one place and demand you turn the other cheek in another to be consistent. Attempting to explain the many contradictions in the bible is a very active part of bible study.
Reminds me of the Pepsi Points Case where someone tried to get Pepsi to hand over a Harrier Jet in return for Pepsi points during a contest. Pepsi won that case.
Religious dogma is not supposed to change EVER. Scientific knowledge IS supposed to change when better evidence is known. Yes, there are cases where it took a long time to change the scientific consensus, but change it did.
If your natural process is being guided by a Supreme Being then it isn't natural anymore. I would expect most educated people to choose 'natural process'.
Who made God? If he doesn't need a creator why does the universe need one?
Slashdot Mirror
If you are studying religious dogma you can study ID. That is the only field it belongs in.
Ive never heard of anyone complaining that ID changes when new evidence is found. One of the big issues with ID is that they never change the theory, no matter what the evidence which means it is not a scientific theory.
The license they offer explicitly does NOT guarantee the schedule data supplied to be correct. They are just worried about money.
Can someone explain why anyone cares that a common, stable, substance microscopically contaminates money? Why does anyone care? What does this supposed to mean? Is anyone actually freaking out?
Did you write your MP? He likely doesn't read slashdot.
So you are saying stupid people shouldn't buy electric cars?
Electric cars don't idle. When stopped they are only drawing power for accessories. If the A/C is off you can consider the car off and not drawing any power.
500 mile range? Most north American cars get about 300 miles to a tank. A Miata only get 300 miles to tank on the highway.
100 miles is about double what the average commuter needs for daily travel.
Electric cars don't "idle". In stop and go traffic they use virtually zero power during the stop phase. But it is true that A/C does use a fair bit of power to run the compressor.
Who cares if it is hard? It is that difficulty that should be making us want to do it!
What has happened to people! Is there no sense of adventure? Must everything have a cost benefit analysis done? The USA wouldn't have landed a man on the moon with you people in charge. Not everything we do must have an immediate and direct benefit to society. Not everything must make a buck. Some things should be done, just because we can, and it would a great thing to accomplish. Look, the USA spends more in a year making war than going to Mars would cost. Why is it ok to spend all that money killing, but not ok to do something noble, adventurous, and just plain cool.
Colonize Mars!
Why!?!?!?
Because it is so COOL!
Because we can. Because it is a new frontier. Because there are people who want to. Because society needs heroes. Because we need to stop living in fear of any and all risks.
Because we should colonize Mars!!
I wants STUNTS, but the stunts I support. I want people walking on MARS!!!
Then I want to terraform Mars and colonize it. No, I don't want to ship hordes of people from Earth to Mars to "lessen population pressure". That idea is plain silly. I want to ship enough people and support to get a self sustaining colony going that will fill Mars up with people on its own.
Then the human race will have its eggs in TWO baskets.
The welfare state is not meant to keep people poor, but it inadvertently does that in some cases.
If the welfare benefits are higher than the benefits of working (in the USA having free medical while on welfare is worth a LOT) it makes no sense to work.
Welfare systems should include extra training and support for young people to help break the chain of poverty.
Numerous studies have shown that kids that grow up in families "on the dole" tend to grow up to be adults that collect "the dole" much more than other families. The most popular theory for this is a lack of good role models. If you grow up with parents who do not work, do not try to teach you the value of work, who are not well educated, and do not teach their children the value of education, often, not always, the child grows up thinking that going on "the dole" is just the way things are. Work is for some other class of people they can never belong to. Many children DO escape this life, often due to the influence of teachers, or relatives that do work.
In many places it has been found that working hard to break this cycle can work. Set welfare (dole) rates low enough to live on, but just barely. Anti-poverty activists will yell about a lack of dignity, but I'm of the firm opinion dignity comes form working. Do NOT make getting on welfare easy for children. Where I live you can't get on welfare as a child if your parents are alive and you are under 25. There are exceptions for cases where the parents are abusive. You have to do work training, and / or actively look for work if you are able. You cannot stay on full welfare for more than 2 years if you are able bodied. Then the welfare payments decrease.
Welfare should exist to help people out when they suffer a string of bad luck, or are handicapped and can't work. The rules for welfare should encourage working. For example, if it pays more than the minimum wage why would you work? If welfare rules claw back all your wages when you start working part-time, why would you work part time? Make it hard to get on welfare when people are young. Have separate systems that give extra support and training to break the cycle for young people.
The rest of the community, ie "society" doesn't have any rights. Only individuals have rights.
Every argument in favour of group rights is an argument against individual rights. It is always someone try to subvert an individuals rights in the name of "the greater good".
So while I support paying taxes to fund universal education, and health care, I don't pretend my supporting these taxes doesn't infringe on the rights of people who don't support these taxes. I am subverting individual rights to support my point of view. A very popular point of view where I live, but I don't pretend that imaginary "group rights" makes it all morally wonderful.
Yes, there are laws that are in place to make society better, and some of these laws infringe our individual rights. Society may decide to infringe basic rights for the "greater good", but don't pretend it ISN'T infringing individual rights. When you admit you are infringing individual rights I would hope you would be much more careful about infringing rights.
In this case I would say that installing these cameras goes way too far. It infringes basic rights to privacy, it involves a whole family, most of whose members are innocent of any crime. Group punishment is generally against the law. This is a case of a government wanting to show "it is doing something" and deciding camera's are a lot cheaper than hiring and paying social workers and police. They don't really expect this to help. They just want to be able to say to the voters, look, we tried.
In 1831 90% of the USA population worked on farms. Today that is less than 2%. As technology improved the number of people required to produce food has greatly diminished, and people were talking about the same problem these robots and AI's might cause. What would all the farm workers do! Most went to factories then the service sector.
The same story is told about virtually all technological progress, from seamstresses rioting over sewing machines, water powered mills, the steam engine, and the modern factory displacing cottage industry, pundits have shouted that there will be widespread unemployment, riots, pandering, and society will collapse!
They were all wrong.
Big changes do cause short term upheavals, and a truly intelligent AI mated with a general purpose robot will cause huge changes to society, but these changes will free people from boring manual labour to do more creative work. And the non-creative? They'll do their one days work, or one hour, or none, then watch tv just like they do now.
The 5 day work week was a radical change. Eventually technology will bring us the one day work week then no work. Trying to ban technology won't stop it. Society will be greatly different. I think overall people will be more free and happier when we live in a post-scarcity society.
Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB)
All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)
The old Testament has more of this sort of thing, but the new has it too.
"The bible is a remarkably consistent book"
I don't consider it consistent to demand you kill children who talk back to their parents in one place and demand you turn the other cheek in another to be consistent. Attempting to explain the many contradictions in the bible is a very active part of bible study.
Reminds me of the Pepsi Points Case where someone tried to get Pepsi to hand over a Harrier Jet in return for Pepsi points during a contest. Pepsi won that case.
I'm pretty sure it is the protestants that believe good works can sway God, while Catholics believe in salvation by 'grace' only.
Why is the information regarding the British civil war not being modded up as informative? The exact same thing popped into my head.
Not in my part of Canada. We respect and admire others success, especially at import things. American Idol is not important. Landing on the moon is.
Religious dogma is not supposed to change EVER. Scientific knowledge IS supposed to change when better evidence is known. Yes, there are cases where it took a long time to change the scientific consensus, but change it did.
But it is still official Christian dogma that all the pagans and heathens, not matter how well they lived their lives, ARE going to hell.
If your natural process is being guided by a Supreme Being then it isn't natural anymore. I would expect most educated people to choose 'natural process'.
Who made God? If he doesn't need a creator why does the universe need one?
Why doesn't God do anything about evil?
90% of us Canadians live within 300Km of the southern border. 99% of us live within walking distance of a polling place during elections.
I can't say why people don't vote, but it isn't because they can't get to the polling place.