Stalin was not a stamp collector. Someone who is not a stamp collector is an aphilateist. This proves that being an aphilateist leads to killing millions, and that all aphiliateists are immoral beasts.
Stopping suddenly should never cause an accident. You should always stay far enough away from the car in front of you so that if they slam on their brakes you can still stop safely. If you are closer than that you are tailgating. What this study is really saying is that lots of drivers in New Jersey tailgate.
Red light cameras have cut down accidents in BC. They did not shorten the yellow, the cameras are obvious, and there are generally warning signs. The law here is that if you rear end someone it is your fault, 100% no exceptions. This law helps keep tailgating down some.
The flashing yellow warning lights before intersections are only for highways. They are timed so that you cannot make it through the light if you are travelling at the speed limit if they turn on and you are close to the sign. If you are already speeding you might make it through if they just turned on. So yes, some people do speed up, but in general I feel they make highways safer.
The article mentioned "gender neutrality" - HA HA HA!
Unless the ex-wife is abusing the kids she will get at least joint custody, and generally will get primary custody. When I first divorced I was ok with joint custody, but it after a couple of years it was obvious my ex wasn't up to raising three kids on her own. Enter the lawyers. Judges gave her "communication plans", counselling, all sorts of chances, but all I got was Wednesday evenings. Finally, Social Services apprehended the kids and gave me custody. Went back to court with a letter saying SS would apprehend the kids again if they were ever back with the ex and I was awarded sole custody and parental rights. The ex still got weekend visits which I was ok with.
The courts are not even close to being gender neutral yet.
My brother and his wife got divorced and they did not want either of them to pay alimony or child support. It took three tries to convince the court that that was what they really wanted. The courts REALLY wanted someone, anyone, to pay support.
The adversarial court system may work for criminal cases, and most civil cases, but it doesn't work for family law.
In most places you are common law married after a period of time, but a "divorce" is still much simpler, and the courts get involved a lot less if it is a common law marriage. The longer you are together, the more the courts will interfere. If there are kids involved, in my jurisdiction, it doesn't matter if you are married or not, your obligations are the same to your kids.
In many places wanting to protect the term "Engineer" isn't snobbery it is due to the legal fact that a "professional engineer" is legally liable regarding the safety of any designs they sign off on.
If you aren't willing to be sued if your software fails you aren't an engineer.
The bible is most definitely NOT the source of modern western morality. The source of modern western morality is the philosophy of the Enlightenment and the raising of reason over revelation as the basis for serious thought about morality and the law.
Except for a few fundamentalists, all Christians use the same moral rules as an atheist when cherry picking what is "good" from the bible. We hear a lot about "doing unto others as you would have done to yourself", and not much about stoning to death neighbours who fail to observe the Sabbath.
I find that most people who claim that the bible is source of their moral values haven't actually read it.
As is often the case someone has confused the term "right" and "entitlement".
Rights are things you are allowed to do and no one can lawfully stop you. Entitlements are things and services you receive even if you cannot personally afford them. Common entitlements are: primary education, police, fire protection, basic medical services, and public infrastructure like roads.
A society may decide that broadband communications should be an entitlement, but it can't decide to refine the word "right" to mean "entitlement".
Nothing should be illegal that doesn't directly harm other people.
If your actions do not harm others then you should be allowed to do it. I don't smoke, or do any drugs other than alcohol, but I think all drugs should be legal. Some should be regulated, but all should be legal. Making something illegal that is wanted just enriches criminals.
Banning smoking where it can bother others I can agree to, but regulating peoples behaviour away from the office I believe violates your basic human rights.
The USA like to pretend they are the land of the free, but except for the freedom to be armed and exploited by corporations you have a lot less freedom than most other western nations.
You don't enjoy smoking, you enjoying stopping the intense craving your nicotine addiction causes. Nicotine doesn't do much of anything except make you addicted according to all the smokers I've talked to. No high, no altered state, just a temporary cessation of the craving.
I think you should should quit smoking because is expensive, unhealthy, smelly, and ugly.
But I don't want to ban smoking as long as you do it where it doesn't bother anyone. It is your right to do stupid things as long as they don't directly harm others.
Sounds like some old fashioned management and coaching is required, not incentives. Management needs to talk to the under performing staff and find out what the underlying issues are and if they can be fixed. Maybe something is happening in their personal life, maybe they need training, maybe they need more challenging work?
But rational thinking HAS brought people to the side of reason. Pastors and priests HAVE lost their faith and embraced science and secularism. Just google "ex pastor turned atheist".
I agree that many hard-core religious people are not going to change their mind, but reason has swayed some,and reason is the best long term cure for religion.
The people making bad videos are not endangering anyone. It is the radical, religious, and political fanatics that are endangering people. These people would have found some other excuse to attack.
That poorly made video, or the proposed burning of a book did not directly cause any deaths. Radical imans, and the leaders of already violent political parties have already decided they want violence. Whether they choose a poorly made video, or some other flimsy pretext they will have their violence.
So you think companies have no responsibly to act morally or ethically? Why is that? It is my strongly held opinion that all people, even the ones running companies, should hold themselves to the highest moral standards at all times.
Freedom of speech is such an important right that all people, the companies made up of people, and the governments of these people should uphold this important right.
Personally, I would not have blocked the video at all, as it will have no effect one way or the other on religious fanatics hell bent on violence.
Basic rights are something everyone should follow, not just the government. This is just.
These trails require the informed consent of the participants, and any well designed trail takes into account that if a new treatment turns out to be very effective it would be unethical to continue, but must be ended and the treatment supplied to all.
As is often the case, the experts have actually though of these things before you.
A million net worth is a pretty low bar if you live in an area with high real estate costs. A nice four bedroom home costs about a million in my city. Most people living in these million dollar homes are middle class, can barely make the mortgage and rent out the basement to help make the payments.
$100,000, 000 is more of the net worth where you might be getting out of touch with the common folk.
Theology has been on the decline since the 1600's. Excepting a few small schools in the USA and Madrasah's in the muslim world, theology is a minor subsection of the philosophy department of any good university.
Chance is involved, but if your referring to evolution, chance is only a small part of the process. Each mutation is random, but the harsh gate keeper of death filters out the mutations that don't work. The formation of stars, galaxies, and planets seem to be pretty mechanical and while some chance is involved the more we find out about other star systems to more common planets are.
There are no rational reasons that I'm aware of to believe in God. I'd be pleased if you'd share some.
Or happened on purpose as the case may be. Without
evidence one way or another, there's no point to taking a stand on the issue.
Currently there is a LOT of evidence that we arose mainly by chance, and no evidence that anything other than natural processes lead to our existence. There is no external reason to your being. I'm quite confident, given our current knowledge of the world, that the only rational position is that we arose by the working of natural, often random, natural forces.
Taking any other position requires ignoring a vast body of evidence.
I wouldn't mind people buying whatever size car they want if they learned to drive. No texting while driving, no tailgating, signal all lane changes and turns, stop at stop signs and red lights, yield at yield signs, merge at speed onto highways, give the right of way to cars in the round about. Just normal stuff.
Slashdot Mirror
A columnist at the CBC has a good article on how many Canadians feel about the USA's attitude towards guns and these horrible tragedies.
Stalin was not a stamp collector. Someone who is not a stamp collector is an aphilateist. This proves that being an aphilateist leads to killing millions, and that all aphiliateists are immoral beasts.
Stopping suddenly should never cause an accident. You should always stay far enough away from the car in front of you so that if they slam on their brakes you can still stop safely. If you are closer than that you are tailgating. What this study is really saying is that lots of drivers in New Jersey tailgate.
Red light cameras have cut down accidents in BC. They did not shorten the yellow, the cameras are obvious, and there are generally warning signs. The law here is that if you rear end someone it is your fault, 100% no exceptions. This law helps keep tailgating down some.
The flashing yellow warning lights before intersections are only for highways. They are timed so that you cannot make it through the light if you are travelling at the speed limit if they turn on and you are close to the sign. If you are already speeding you might make it through if they just turned on. So yes, some people do speed up, but in general I feel they make highways safer.
The article mentioned "gender neutrality" - HA HA HA!
Unless the ex-wife is abusing the kids she will get at least joint custody, and generally will get primary custody. When I first divorced I was ok with joint custody, but it after a couple of years it was obvious my ex wasn't up to raising three kids on her own. Enter the lawyers. Judges gave her "communication plans", counselling, all sorts of chances, but all I got was Wednesday evenings. Finally, Social Services apprehended the kids and gave me custody. Went back to court with a letter saying SS would apprehend the kids again if they were ever back with the ex and I was awarded sole custody and parental rights. The ex still got weekend visits which I was ok with.
The courts are not even close to being gender neutral yet.
My brother and his wife got divorced and they did not want either of them to pay alimony or child support. It took three tries to convince the court that that was what they really wanted. The courts REALLY wanted someone, anyone, to pay support.
The adversarial court system may work for criminal cases, and most civil cases, but it doesn't work for family law.
In most places you are common law married after a period of time, but a "divorce" is still much simpler, and the courts get involved a lot less if it is a common law marriage. The longer you are together, the more the courts will interfere. If there are kids involved, in my jurisdiction, it doesn't matter if you are married or not, your obligations are the same to your kids.
In many places wanting to protect the term "Engineer" isn't snobbery it is due to the legal fact that a "professional engineer" is legally liable regarding the safety of any designs they sign off on.
If you aren't willing to be sued if your software fails you aren't an engineer.
the parent post is informative and true, the last time around the minister did sate that only child pornographers were against the bill.
Typical smart meters call the power company twice a day. Not sure how much noise that could generate.
The bible is most definitely NOT the source of modern western morality. The source of modern western morality is the philosophy of the Enlightenment and the raising of reason over revelation as the basis for serious thought about morality and the law.
Except for a few fundamentalists, all Christians use the same moral rules as an atheist when cherry picking what is "good" from the bible. We hear a lot about "doing unto others as you would have done to yourself", and not much about stoning to death neighbours who fail to observe the Sabbath.
I find that most people who claim that the bible is source of their moral values haven't actually read it.
As is often the case someone has confused the term "right" and "entitlement".
Rights are things you are allowed to do and no one can lawfully stop you. Entitlements are things and services you receive even if you cannot personally afford them. Common entitlements are: primary education, police, fire protection, basic medical services, and public infrastructure like roads.
A society may decide that broadband communications should be an entitlement, but it can't decide to refine the word "right" to mean "entitlement".
Nothing should be illegal that doesn't directly harm other people.
If your actions do not harm others then you should be allowed to do it. I don't smoke, or do any drugs other than alcohol, but I think all drugs should be legal. Some should be regulated, but all should be legal. Making something illegal that is wanted just enriches criminals.
Banning smoking where it can bother others I can agree to, but regulating peoples behaviour away from the office I believe violates your basic human rights.
The USA like to pretend they are the land of the free, but except for the freedom to be armed and exploited by corporations you have a lot less freedom than most other western nations.
You don't enjoy smoking, you enjoying stopping the intense craving your nicotine addiction causes. Nicotine doesn't do much of anything except make you addicted according to all the smokers I've talked to. No high, no altered state, just a temporary cessation of the craving.
I think you should should quit smoking because is expensive, unhealthy, smelly, and ugly.
But I don't want to ban smoking as long as you do it where it doesn't bother anyone. It is your right to do stupid things as long as they don't directly harm others.
Sounds like some old fashioned management and coaching is required, not incentives. Management needs to talk to the under performing staff and find out what the underlying issues are and if they can be fixed. Maybe something is happening in their personal life, maybe they need training, maybe they need more challenging work?
mod up, this is very informative.
But rational thinking HAS brought people to the side of reason. Pastors and priests HAVE lost their faith and embraced science and secularism. Just google "ex pastor turned atheist".
I agree that many hard-core religious people are not going to change their mind, but reason has swayed some,and reason is the best long term cure for religion.
The people making bad videos are not endangering anyone. It is the radical, religious, and political fanatics that are endangering people. These people would have found some other excuse to attack.
That poorly made video, or the proposed burning of a book did not directly cause any deaths. Radical imans, and the leaders of already violent political parties have already decided they want violence. Whether they choose a poorly made video, or some other flimsy pretext they will have their violence.
Censorship isn't going to make anyone safer.
So you think companies have no responsibly to act morally or ethically? Why is that? It is my strongly held opinion that all people, even the ones running companies, should hold themselves to the highest moral standards at all times.
Freedom of speech is such an important right that all people, the companies made up of people, and the governments of these people should uphold this important right.
Personally, I would not have blocked the video at all, as it will have no effect one way or the other on religious fanatics hell bent on violence.
Basic rights are something everyone should follow, not just the government. This is just.
These trails require the informed consent of the participants, and any well designed trail takes into account that if a new treatment turns out to be very effective it would be unethical to continue, but must be ended and the treatment supplied to all.
As is often the case, the experts have actually though of these things before you.
A million net worth is a pretty low bar if you live in an area with high real estate costs. A nice four bedroom home costs about a million in my city. Most people living in these million dollar homes are middle class, can barely make the mortgage and rent out the basement to help make the payments.
$100,000, 000 is more of the net worth where you might be getting out of touch with the common folk.
A Universe from Nothing is a book from a physicist that covers the same ground from a purely physics point of view.
Theology has been on the decline since the 1600's. Excepting a few small schools in the USA and Madrasah's in the muslim world, theology is a minor subsection of the philosophy department of any good university.
Chance is involved, but if your referring to evolution, chance is only a small part of the process. Each mutation is random, but the harsh gate keeper of death filters out the mutations that don't work. The formation of stars, galaxies, and planets seem to be pretty mechanical and while some chance is involved the more we find out about other star systems to more common planets are.
There are no rational reasons that I'm aware of to believe in God. I'd be pleased if you'd share some.
You just happened by chance, get over it.
Or happened on purpose as the case may be. Without evidence one way or another, there's no point to taking a stand on the issue.
Currently there is a LOT of evidence that we arose mainly by chance, and no evidence that anything other than natural processes lead to our existence. There is no external reason to your being. I'm quite confident, given our current knowledge of the world, that the only rational position is that we arose by the working of natural, often random, natural forces.
Taking any other position requires ignoring a vast body of evidence.
I wouldn't mind people buying whatever size car they want if they learned to drive. No texting while driving, no tailgating, signal all lane changes and turns, stop at stop signs and red lights, yield at yield signs, merge at speed onto highways, give the right of way to cars in the round about. Just normal stuff.
I'm only in danger from the bad drivers.