I'm not really sure how you think that would work. If you allowed that, you'd open the door to any country enforcing its copyright laws on every other country, simply because the content was potentially accessible to someone in their nation. That's a hell of a can of worms to open, because copyright laws vary wildly between countries -- in the E.U., for instance, you can copyright databases in ways that are not deemed valid in the U.S.
You might be able to find a lower court judge stupid enough to rule that was initially (there are a lot of judges, and by definition, that means there are at least some really bad ones), but I can't imagine that it wouldn't be overturned on appeal.
Indeed, but it is not for the higher court to consider the can of worms its decision has in regard to another jurisdicition, that court has only to consider its own laws. Look at the French cases regarding racist websites (nazi memorabilia) and the regard they show for US free speech rights. It's another story of course when it comes to enforcing judgments inconsistent with the country where the defendant exists. Eg consider the Joe Gutnik defamation victory against Barrons. Now given that Barrons have no Australian corporate presence Gutnik won't be able to get his order enforced (since US defamation law would not be so favourable to Gutnik).
So... it's not entirely outside the realm of possibility that some EU or US superior court would hold that IFPI was in breach of their copyright legislation (certainly the locals who download and make their own copy would be), but it is difficult to see how they would get a Canadian court to enforce an order against them.
In any case, I can't see why IFPI needs to shut down. They could remove those scores less than 70yrs post death, and safely continue publishing.
When I say 'Living in the northern or southern hemisphere would make no difference' I mean the effect of eccentricity is felt equally in both hemispheres.
I don't doubt that is what you mean.
As for the OP, he states that the northern hemisphere (with reference to axial tilt) is closer in winter as a result of axial tilt - which is incorrect.
He does no such thing.
He is not talking about eccentricity, as his quote is in response to the statement "Last time I check... Winter was caused by the angle of the planet".
Oh come on now! I'll grant you that his response was somewhat of a non sequitur, but you understood as well as I that OP's factoid related to orbital eccentricity. As you wrote: "I'm assuming when you state that the 'sun is closer during the winter' that you're talking about Earth's orbital eccentricity..." You allowed the possibility he was talking about angle of Earth's axis only in the alternative: "If however you're talking about Earth's rotatational axis..."
I put it to you that in your mind the concepts of January and winter are so closely associated that when OP wrote the correct statement "[i]f you live in the northern hemisphere the sun is closer during the winter than during the summer" instead of grasping the obvious meaning (ie. the earth is closest to the sun during northern hemisphere winter), to you it looked as if OP believed that axial tilt was experienced differently in either hemisphere. And that you proceded upon your attack on the basis what you heard rather what OP actually said. I further put it to you that in trying to defend your misreading you are merely digging yourself in deeper and deeper and that you could choose now, to just let it go, and admit to yourself that you do understand what he meant, now. If you want to.
Umm, If you live in the northern hemisphere the sun is closer during the winter than during the summer.
You might want to rephrase that or look at the facts again.
I'm assuming when you state that the 'sun is closer during the winter' that you're talking about Earth's orbital eccentricity (non-circular orbit) resulting in the entire planet being about 5 million kilometres closer to the sun during winter. Living in the northern or southern hemisphere would make no difference.
It makes all the difference in (either half of) the world!
To be absolutely clear. The perhelion currently occurs around the begining of January. In the nothern hemisphere January is in winter, whereas in the southern hemisphere January is in summer. The Aphelion occurs around the begining of July. In the southern hemisphere July is in winter, whereas in the northern hemisphere July is in summer. Thus "[i]f you live in the northern hemisphere the sun is closer during the winter than during the summer." Conversely if you live in the southern hemisphere the sun is closer during summer than it is during winter. Can you now understand what the OP wrote, and why it is correct?
That being said, Earth's orbit is only slightly elliptical, so the difference (and climatic effects) between perhelion and aphelion is slight. By contrast the effects are significant on planets (eg. Mars) which have greater eccentricity.
Here in the Netherlands you also have to pay outrageous amounts of money if you play music in your shop, or your cafe.
Really, you have to admire these guys for the amazing scam they've set up. First they get a copyright payment when the recording is sold (times the number of people who buy the recording). Next they get another payment when a radio station wants to license the right to 'perform' it (times the number of radio stations). Finally (?) they get yet another payment when anyone wants to play (the radio or the recording) in a public place (times the number of cafes, shops, etc etc).
Then the have the audacity to call this stuff intellectual property! What other species of property can you lease so many times simultaneously, without ever having to surrender your own use of it? Wicked!
I know why: musical performance rights that do not involve transmitting the work digitally are licensed through ASCAP/SESAC/BMI, not RIAA or its member labels.
Really? So before digital transmission the RIAA didn't have any rights over recorded music? Given the name I had assumed that the RIAA dealt with the rights (including perfomance) rights to sound recordings, as opposed to say the right related to published music (eg. the right to perform a cover).
I think the tobacco companies should sue
everyone for enjoying their products at
second ( or even third ) hand.
They don't own the smoke. There is no IP issue here, the sale of cigarettes is a simple assignment of chattel. The smoke belongs to the people who burn the cigarettes but since they are (facially) comitting a tresspass to the person, they aren't in a position to complain either.
Even though this is occurring in another country, this may give them some sort of precedent...
Here in Australia, this is already long the established (APRA v Tolbush [1986]), I'm surprised that it is not already so in the UK. In Tolbush an agent from the Australasian Performing Rights Association (APRA) asked for a car radio to be demonstrated in a shop, and when the shop keeper turned the radio on he got sued for making an infringing public performance (how that was not authorisation I don't know).
It's seems a little odd that the RIAA hasn't set this up in the US yet. Maybe they are waiting to get one of their congressmen/senators to enact it legislatively rather throwing the dice in court?
The real giveaway is when they go about the superior "acoustics" of vinyl, when in reality vinyl introduces noise and distortion.
Almost everybody, probably even you, will be able to hear the "superiour "acoustics"" (ie. the fact that the sound is analog) of vinyl when compard to the sound of a digitised version (whether on CD or elsewhere). If you haven't been sat down (it only looks grammatically incorrect) in front of audiophile grade equipment and played a CD and a (mint condition) LP of the same thing on, however, you might not be aware of this (someone did this to me many years ago when CDs were new, I'm not such an audio nut). The real problem with vinyl is that you have to throw it out after playing it 3 or 4 times (that is if you want those "superior acoustics").
Sorry for leaving off the smiley... but since you made a serious response.
John Lennon's song writing ended earlier, when his cooperation with Paul McCartney ended.
Lennon and McCartney didn't actually write songs together (except maybe the cut and past like A Day in the Life), they merely co-signed the songs each wrote indivdually.
Hanging around with Yoko Ono didn't help, either.
Since it is likely that she was the one who introduced him to Janov, you're might be correct there;)
John Lennon was not a good judge of women, in my opinion.
I kinda think when deciding whom to spend his life with, his opinion carries a little more weight than yours.
Far be it from me to tell you how to argue against me, but you could have pointed out that at least two great albums: Plastic Ono Band (1970) (which includes the track Mother, primal therapy as a song), and especially Imagine (1971) (widely regarded as a classic) came out during and following John and Yoko's primal therapy.
John Lennon of the Beatles before Janov's help: Did at least 4 drugs, apparently daily. Screwed around with numerous women.
John Lennon of the Beatles after Janov's help: Stayed home and took care of his child. Seemed much less desperate.
On the other hand John Lennon before Janov was a decent songwriter...
I call crap on this. We will be able to detect biometric data. We will not be able to tell "what you're thinking."
Absolutely! I mean I can't even tell what I'm thinking myself half the time and I have privileged access. This kind of thing erodes the credibility of the other claims being made. I'll buy "you can tell whether someone is dead or alive on the battlefield," but the rest is vapourware.
I find that "panopticon" is something unfamiliar to many western readers. This concept, however was evident in many places where totalitarian authoritarian states were to be found.
That's kind of odd really given that the concept was invented and advocated by that great champion of individual liberty Jeremy Bentham, and given that the concept has been influential in western prison design. I guess it just goes to show that not enough people read Foucault;).
For those unfamiliar with the concept, the Panopticon was a prison design in which prisoners could at any time be under surveillance, without any way of telling whether they in fact were.
I knew a couple of chicks (some fat, some otherwise) that would "blow for co". Those old MajorBBS systems attracted some weird personalities... I'm glad the Internet wiped 'em out frankly.
the only way a "free" market could exist, would be a world free of patents, trademarks, copyrights, DRM...
But such a "free" market would be subject to endemic market failures due to the lack of patents and copyrights. That is to say without such protections anyone investing in R&D would be forced out of the market by freeloaders who don't have to bear the research costs (which is why IP really need only be a civil matter between competing producers, and not what it has become).
It has never existed
So far as I know copyright didn't exist prior to the Statute of Anne, patents were an Elizabethan invention, trademarks came even later (though the tort of "passing off" did already exist) and DRM... Apparently these are not the reason there has never been a "free" market.
Once the trash (and I would argue that includes your sewage) leaves your house it is no longer your property but that of the trash company. Therefore, if the trash company (or in this case the sewage plant) OKs its use by law enforcement there is nothing you can do.
There's a case (SCOTUS from memory, but since you didn't bother to cite any authority I won't bother looking it up) where Police detected a grow room using infra-red sensing technology, from the street. Conviction was quashed on the basis that it was an unreasonable search and constitutionally invalid. This looks like a fairly similar scenario. Police, from a public place, without probable cause, take a reading pertaining to activities in a private house == unreasonable search.
The point is that this kind of search is only good for a fishing expedition. After all, you can't prove that the stuff comming out of the sewage was excreted by my client, (it was that guy who came up and asked to use the phone and then the john...) With a warrant (and the legal basis to conduct a search) LEO have a much better chance of securing a conviction.
How is informing the world that person X is an undercover operative for your government (and that their "employer" is a CIA front, also outing each and every operative utilizing that front) not close to a textbook definition of "giving Aid to the Enemy"?
It's not a textbook example because the evildoer has as you put it informed the world, rather than giving this aid the the Enemy directly. Which is not to say it ain't treason, or something uncomfortable close, of course.
Out of curiosity, can anyone explain to me how the German government paying people to edit and to write wikipedia pages about a certain topic (in this case, renewable resources) does not constitute propaganda?
Unless you were working on a different definition, we'll define 'propaganda' as "The systematic dissemination of information, esp. in a biased or misleading way, in order to promote a political cause or point of view." (OED). It should be clear that the payment by the government to write stuff is not necessarily propaganda... it very much depends on what they write. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that the information they produce will be accurate (in that it reflects the best technical view of experts in the field), or where the subject matter allows for controversy, that it will be balanced. Furthermore it is possible that the contributions will not promote any particular political cause. For instance how is the statement "On Earth acceleration due to gravity is ca. 9.8m/s2" propaganda when written by a government funded writer (but apparently not when written by anyone else)?
In other words you'll have to see what is produced before you can judge it. The mere fact of government funding doesn't make communication propganda.
As I indicated to another poster, you are latching on to the aspect of the word "Agnostic" which is focused on by Theists, that is existence of an entity which can be termed "God", while there are many other aspects of existence which lack any plausible scientific explanation so far, one of which is the topic of conversation.
Fair enough, however, given that the unmarked case of the word 'agnostic' deals with belief in God, we were probably entitled to make such a presumption. So you didn't want to talk about god.
Speaking of "God" however...
No lets not speak of God, after all my point in this regard was that this concept was culturally privileged over all other possible, but unsubstantiable, entities. Let's speak instead about the possible influx of undetectable flying fish into your room. What could they possibly eat? Is it true that they always bear down on any floating objects in the room pushing them towards the floor? Do they have colour, even though we can't see them? Why we could go on for hours talking about stuff that possibly exists, but for which we have no evidence. Unless it happens to be your pet concept (say 'extra dimentional entanglement), it can be quite tedious. And it certainly lacks any scientific validity. So maybe we should talk about that priviledge possible entity God, after all we can have fun with that.
Yet we do not even know if the question itself is valid, and asking "Is there a God (or gods)" might be akin to asking "is integer number 7 rich?".
The technical term for that is a "category error," following Gilber Ryle, which segues nicely into this... I'm not even sure I understand the question "is there a God," or "does God exist." Existence usually denotes corporeality, so what could 'exist' mean when applied to an entity which by definition has no corporeal form?
What we do recognise is that evidence of (on-going) human consciousness has never been found absent a living human body. We also note from personal experience, that when our brain is switched off (as under general anasthetic -- a state most closely resembling the brain's position post mortem), we simply experience no consciousness at all, not even a sense of time having passed. Nor do sane people report any ante-natal memories.
This alone is insufficient....
Sufficient for what? This isn't a criminal trial, the burden of proof isn't "beyond all reasonable doubt," we're working with the "the balanceof probabilities" here. Doubt is not the unqualified virtue you apparently believe it to be.
... If some sort of entanglement exists, it is possible that whatever the extra dimentional particles or what not are entangled would only be de-coupled upon some drastic changes of quantum state of the proteins in the neurons they are coupled with, i.e. their decomposition. And that is only one of the possibilities...
Sure it's possible, so what? Mere possibility isn't all that interesting.
You have commited a logical error here, out of ideological bias, by claiming "some evidence" (which we actually have exactly none of) and coupling it with "All else is merely unsubstantiated conjecture".
Which particular ideological bias are we talking about here (or is this mere name calling)? There is no logical error in drawing a dichotomy between possibilities which are substantiated by evidence, and those which are not. However, the reason you believe there is nicely demonstrates the error into which you have fallen. So lets take it apart:
Our evidence of lack (or existence) of any such possible entanglements with extra-dimentional states is, to say the least, miniscule...
Evidence of a lack of any particular possibility?! Affirmanti non neganti incumbit probatio is more than a merely arbitrary rule of logical discourse
That is why I am a "we have insufficient data" sort of an Agnostic. It is in my view the only scientifically honest position.
The problem with this is that it privileges the concept 'God' over 'Zorsdix' or any other of the inifite possible postulated ideas, whose corporeal existence lacks any supporting evidence. In fact the honest scientific position is simply to recognise that the concept of 'God' makes no more sense than the idea that the room you are sitting in is filled with undetectable flying fish (ie both are logically possible, but lack empirical foundation). Since there is zero evidence for either proposition, from a scientific position neither warrants more than infinitesimal attention.
We simply do not, at this point, understand the nature of consciousness. We theorize that it has similar properties to that of various computational systems and that the neuronal functions are reducible to programs which can be executed by Turing machines or some other well-defined automata, but we, at this point, cannot demonstrate that it is so.
Theorise all you want. What we do recognise is that evidence of (on-going) human consciousness has never been found absent a living human body. We also note from personal experience, that when our brain is switched off (as under general anasthetic -- a state most closely resembling the brain's position post mortem), we simply experience no consciousness at all, not even a sense of time having passed. Nor do sane people report any ante-natal memories.
In other words, we have good evidence (both from introspection and by observation of other people), that human consciousness does exist in alive and alert humans, no evidence at all that it exists outside of alive and alert humans, and some evidence that it ceases to occur when the brain no longer functions. The evidence points towards the conclusion that mind ends with the death of the brain that gives rise to said mind. All else is merely unsubstantiated conjecture.
Whether or not you want to postulate that human consciousness can accuratly be described in CS terms is a completely separate issue.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not really sure how you think that would work. If you allowed that, you'd open the door to any country enforcing its copyright laws on every other country, simply because the content was potentially accessible to someone in their nation. That's a hell of a can of worms to open, because copyright laws vary wildly between countries -- in the E.U., for instance, you can copyright databases in ways that are not deemed valid in the U.S.
You might be able to find a lower court judge stupid enough to rule that was initially (there are a lot of judges, and by definition, that means there are at least some really bad ones), but I can't imagine that it wouldn't be overturned on appeal.
Indeed, but it is not for the higher court to consider the can of worms its decision has in regard to another jurisdicition, that court has only to consider its own laws. Look at the French cases regarding racist websites (nazi memorabilia) and the regard they show for US free speech rights. It's another story of course when it comes to enforcing judgments inconsistent with the country where the defendant exists. Eg consider the Joe Gutnik defamation victory against Barrons. Now given that Barrons have no Australian corporate presence Gutnik won't be able to get his order enforced (since US defamation law would not be so favourable to Gutnik).
So ... it's not entirely outside the realm of possibility that some EU or US superior court would hold that IFPI was in breach of their copyright legislation (certainly the locals who download and make their own copy would be), but it is difficult to see how they would get a Canadian court to enforce an order against them.
In any case, I can't see why IFPI needs to shut down. They could remove those scores less than 70yrs post death, and safely continue publishing.
Dude, you put the cart before the horse. It's the US Government that is a convenient proxy for Halliburton.
When I say 'Living in the northern or southern hemisphere would make no difference' I mean the effect of eccentricity is felt equally in both hemispheres.
I don't doubt that is what you mean.
As for the OP, he states that the northern hemisphere (with reference to axial tilt) is closer in winter as a result of axial tilt - which is incorrect.
He does no such thing.
He is not talking about eccentricity, as his quote is in response to the statement "Last time I check... Winter was caused by the angle of the planet".
Oh come on now! I'll grant you that his response was somewhat of a non sequitur, but you understood as well as I that OP's factoid related to orbital eccentricity. As you wrote: "I'm assuming when you state that the 'sun is closer during the winter' that you're talking about Earth's orbital eccentricity ..." You allowed the possibility he was talking about angle of Earth's axis only in the alternative: "If however you're talking about Earth's rotatational axis ..."
I put it to you that in your mind the concepts of January and winter are so closely associated that when OP wrote the correct statement "[i]f you live in the northern hemisphere the sun is closer during the winter than during the summer" instead of grasping the obvious meaning (ie. the earth is closest to the sun during northern hemisphere winter), to you it looked as if OP believed that axial tilt was experienced differently in either hemisphere. And that you proceded upon your attack on the basis what you heard rather what OP actually said. I further put it to you that in trying to defend your misreading you are merely digging yourself in deeper and deeper and that you could choose now, to just let it go, and admit to yourself that you do understand what he meant, now. If you want to.
Forgive me my poor greek. That should of course read perihelion.
You might want to rephrase that or look at the facts again.
I'm assuming when you state that the 'sun is closer during the winter' that you're talking about Earth's orbital eccentricity (non-circular orbit) resulting in the entire planet being about 5 million kilometres closer to the sun during winter. Living in the northern or southern hemisphere would make no difference.
It makes all the difference in (either half of) the world!
To be absolutely clear. The perhelion currently occurs around the begining of January. In the nothern hemisphere January is in winter, whereas in the southern hemisphere January is in summer. The Aphelion occurs around the begining of July. In the southern hemisphere July is in winter, whereas in the northern hemisphere July is in summer. Thus "[i]f you live in the northern hemisphere the sun is closer during the winter than during the summer." Conversely if you live in the southern hemisphere the sun is closer during summer than it is during winter. Can you now understand what the OP wrote, and why it is correct?
That being said, Earth's orbit is only slightly elliptical, so the difference (and climatic effects) between perhelion and aphelion is slight. By contrast the effects are significant on planets (eg. Mars) which have greater eccentricity.
Here in the Netherlands you also have to pay outrageous amounts of money if you play music in your shop, or your cafe.
Really, you have to admire these guys for the amazing scam they've set up. First they get a copyright payment when the recording is sold (times the number of people who buy the recording). Next they get another payment when a radio station wants to license the right to 'perform' it (times the number of radio stations). Finally (?) they get yet another payment when anyone wants to play (the radio or the recording) in a public place (times the number of cafes, shops, etc etc).
Then the have the audacity to call this stuff intellectual property! What other species of property can you lease so many times simultaneously, without ever having to surrender your own use of it? Wicked!
So jam it. A nice, dirty, square wave oscillator should do the trick.
Why would you bother doing that when you can just call APRA and inform them that of an ongoing copyright violation? ;)
Capsaicin, stop reading now.
Not only that, but I got modded flamebait as well. That'll teach me for trying a pun (without pointing it out) at slashdot.
I know why: musical performance rights that do not involve transmitting the work digitally are licensed through ASCAP/SESAC/BMI, not RIAA or its member labels.
Really? So before digital transmission the RIAA didn't have any rights over recorded music? Given the name I had assumed that the RIAA dealt with the rights (including perfomance) rights to sound recordings, as opposed to say the right related to published music (eg. the right to perform a cover).
They don't own the smoke. There is no IP issue here, the sale of cigarettes is a simple assignment of chattel. The smoke belongs to the people who burn the cigarettes but since they are (facially) comitting a tresspass to the person, they aren't in a position to complain either.
In other words, your analogy sucks!
Even though this is occurring in another country, this may give them some sort of precedent ...
Here in Australia, this is already long the established (APRA v Tolbush [1986]), I'm surprised that it is not already so in the UK. In Tolbush an agent from the Australasian Performing Rights Association (APRA) asked for a car radio to be demonstrated in a shop, and when the shop keeper turned the radio on he got sued for making an infringing public performance (how that was not authorisation I don't know).
It's seems a little odd that the RIAA hasn't set this up in the US yet. Maybe they are waiting to get one of their congressmen/senators to enact it legislatively rather throwing the dice in court?
The real giveaway is when they go about the superior "acoustics" of vinyl, when in reality vinyl introduces noise and distortion.
Almost everybody, probably even you, will be able to hear the "superiour "acoustics"" (ie. the fact that the sound is analog) of vinyl when compard to the sound of a digitised version (whether on CD or elsewhere). If you haven't been sat down (it only looks grammatically incorrect) in front of audiophile grade equipment and played a CD and a (mint condition) LP of the same thing on, however, you might not be aware of this (someone did this to me many years ago when CDs were new, I'm not such an audio nut). The real problem with vinyl is that you have to throw it out after playing it 3 or 4 times (that is if you want those "superior acoustics").
Sorry for leaving off the smiley ... but since you made a serious response.
John Lennon's song writing ended earlier, when his cooperation with Paul McCartney ended.
Lennon and McCartney didn't actually write songs together (except maybe the cut and past like A Day in the Life), they merely co-signed the songs each wrote indivdually.
Hanging around with Yoko Ono didn't help, either.
Since it is likely that she was the one who introduced him to Janov, you're might be correct there ;)
John Lennon was not a good judge of women, in my opinion.
I kinda think when deciding whom to spend his life with, his opinion carries a little more weight than yours.
Far be it from me to tell you how to argue against me, but you could have pointed out that at least two great albums: Plastic Ono Band (1970) (which includes the track Mother, primal therapy as a song), and especially Imagine (1971) (widely regarded as a classic) came out during and following John and Yoko's primal therapy.
Bummer that they don't give the detainees breathing apparatus.
John Lennon of the Beatles before Janov's help: Did at least 4 drugs, apparently daily. Screwed around with numerous women. John Lennon of the Beatles after Janov's help: Stayed home and took care of his child. Seemed much less desperate.
On the other hand John Lennon before Janov was a decent songwriter ...
I call crap on this. We will be able to detect biometric data. We will not be able to tell "what you're thinking."
Absolutely! I mean I can't even tell what I'm thinking myself half the time and I have privileged access. This kind of thing erodes the credibility of the other claims being made. I'll buy "you can tell whether someone is dead or alive on the battlefield," but the rest is vapourware.
That's kind of odd really given that the concept was invented and advocated by that great champion of individual liberty Jeremy Bentham, and given that the concept has been influential in western prison design. I guess it just goes to show that not enough people read Foucault ;).
For those unfamiliar with the concept, the Panopticon was a prison design in which prisoners could at any time be under surveillance, without any way of telling whether they in fact were.
I guess you weren't a BBS sysop then ...
the only way a "free" market could exist, would be a world free of patents, trademarks, copyrights, DRM ...
But such a "free" market would be subject to endemic market failures due to the lack of patents and copyrights. That is to say without such protections anyone investing in R&D would be forced out of the market by freeloaders who don't have to bear the research costs (which is why IP really need only be a civil matter between competing producers, and not what it has become).
It has never existed
So far as I know copyright didn't exist prior to the Statute of Anne, patents were an Elizabethan invention, trademarks came even later (though the tort of "passing off" did already exist) and DRM ... Apparently these are not the reason there has never been a "free" market.
Once the trash (and I would argue that includes your sewage) leaves your house it is no longer your property but that of the trash company. Therefore, if the trash company (or in this case the sewage plant) OKs its use by law enforcement there is nothing you can do.
There's a case (SCOTUS from memory, but since you didn't bother to cite any authority I won't bother looking it up) where Police detected a grow room using infra-red sensing technology, from the street. Conviction was quashed on the basis that it was an unreasonable search and constitutionally invalid. This looks like a fairly similar scenario. Police, from a public place, without probable cause, take a reading pertaining to activities in a private house == unreasonable search.
The point is that this kind of search is only good for a fishing expedition. After all, you can't prove that the stuff comming out of the sewage was excreted by my client, (it was that guy who came up and asked to use the phone and then the john...) With a warrant (and the legal basis to conduct a search) LEO have a much better chance of securing a conviction.
What's preventing them from testing the sewer water directly out of a house, instead of a waste plant.
If you live in the US, the 4th amendment.
How is informing the world that person X is an undercover operative for your government (and that their "employer" is a CIA front, also outing each and every operative utilizing that front) not close to a textbook definition of "giving Aid to the Enemy"?
It's not a textbook example because the evildoer has as you put it informed the world, rather than giving this aid the the Enemy directly. Which is not to say it ain't treason, or something uncomfortable close, of course.
Out of curiosity, can anyone explain to me how the German government paying people to edit and to write wikipedia pages about a certain topic (in this case, renewable resources) does not constitute propaganda?
Unless you were working on a different definition, we'll define 'propaganda' as "The systematic dissemination of information, esp. in a biased or misleading way, in order to promote a political cause or point of view." (OED). It should be clear that the payment by the government to write stuff is not necessarily propaganda ... it very much depends on what they write. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that the information they produce will be accurate (in that it reflects the best technical view of experts in the field), or where the subject matter allows for controversy, that it will be balanced. Furthermore it is possible that the contributions will not promote any particular political cause. For instance how is the statement "On Earth acceleration due to gravity is ca. 9.8m/s2" propaganda when written by a government funded writer (but apparently not when written by anyone else)?
In other words you'll have to see what is produced before you can judge it. The mere fact of government funding doesn't make communication propganda.
As I indicated to another poster, you are latching on to the aspect of the word "Agnostic" which is focused on by Theists, that is existence of an entity which can be termed "God", while there are many other aspects of existence which lack any plausible scientific explanation so far, one of which is the topic of conversation.
Fair enough, however, given that the unmarked case of the word 'agnostic' deals with belief in God, we were probably entitled to make such a presumption. So you didn't want to talk about god.
Speaking of "God" however ...
No lets not speak of God, after all my point in this regard was that this concept was culturally privileged over all other possible, but unsubstantiable, entities. Let's speak instead about the possible influx of undetectable flying fish into your room. What could they possibly eat? Is it true that they always bear down on any floating objects in the room pushing them towards the floor? Do they have colour, even though we can't see them? Why we could go on for hours talking about stuff that possibly exists, but for which we have no evidence. Unless it happens to be your pet concept (say 'extra dimentional entanglement), it can be quite tedious. And it certainly lacks any scientific validity. So maybe we should talk about that priviledge possible entity God, after all we can have fun with that.
Yet we do not even know if the question itself is valid, and asking "Is there a God (or gods)" might be akin to asking "is integer number 7 rich?".
The technical term for that is a "category error," following Gilber Ryle, which segues nicely into this... I'm not even sure I understand the question "is there a God," or "does God exist." Existence usually denotes corporeality, so what could 'exist' mean when applied to an entity which by definition has no corporeal form?
What we do recognise is that evidence of (on-going) human consciousness has never been found absent a living human body. We also note from personal experience, that when our brain is switched off (as under general anasthetic -- a state most closely resembling the brain's position post mortem), we simply experience no consciousness at all, not even a sense of time having passed. Nor do sane people report any ante-natal memories.
This alone is insufficient. ...
Sufficient for what? This isn't a criminal trial, the burden of proof isn't "beyond all reasonable doubt," we're working with the "the balanceof probabilities" here. Doubt is not the unqualified virtue you apparently believe it to be.
Sure it's possible, so what? Mere possibility isn't all that interesting.
You have commited a logical error here, out of ideological bias, by claiming "some evidence" (which we actually have exactly none of) and coupling it with "All else is merely unsubstantiated conjecture".
Which particular ideological bias are we talking about here (or is this mere name calling)? There is no logical error in drawing a dichotomy between possibilities which are substantiated by evidence, and those which are not. However, the reason you believe there is nicely demonstrates the error into which you have fallen. So lets take it apart :
Our evidence of lack (or existence) of any such possible entanglements with extra-dimentional states is, to say the least, miniscule ...
Evidence of a lack of any particular possibility?! Affirmanti non neganti incumbit probatio is more than a merely arbitrary rule of logical discourse
That is why I am a "we have insufficient data" sort of an Agnostic. It is in my view the only scientifically honest position.
The problem with this is that it privileges the concept 'God' over 'Zorsdix' or any other of the inifite possible postulated ideas, whose corporeal existence lacks any supporting evidence. In fact the honest scientific position is simply to recognise that the concept of 'God' makes no more sense than the idea that the room you are sitting in is filled with undetectable flying fish (ie both are logically possible, but lack empirical foundation). Since there is zero evidence for either proposition, from a scientific position neither warrants more than infinitesimal attention.
We simply do not, at this point, understand the nature of consciousness. We theorize that it has similar properties to that of various computational systems and that the neuronal functions are reducible to programs which can be executed by Turing machines or some other well-defined automata, but we, at this point, cannot demonstrate that it is so.
Theorise all you want. What we do recognise is that evidence of (on-going) human consciousness has never been found absent a living human body. We also note from personal experience, that when our brain is switched off (as under general anasthetic -- a state most closely resembling the brain's position post mortem), we simply experience no consciousness at all, not even a sense of time having passed. Nor do sane people report any ante-natal memories.
In other words, we have good evidence (both from introspection and by observation of other people), that human consciousness does exist in alive and alert humans, no evidence at all that it exists outside of alive and alert humans, and some evidence that it ceases to occur when the brain no longer functions. The evidence points towards the conclusion that mind ends with the death of the brain that gives rise to said mind. All else is merely unsubstantiated conjecture.
Whether or not you want to postulate that human consciousness can accuratly be described in CS terms is a completely separate issue.