I want to add if the rains never return to Calif, this will be very serious.
It seems unlikely that the rains will never return. The more serious threat of climate change over the longer term is that drought patterns may be exacerbated.
Those claiming that rains will not only find themselves discredited when the rains return (as they assuredly will), they will have provided more ammunition to those determined to stymie meaningful action on anthropogenic Global Warming. Don't do it!
My opinion merely agrees with yours: Australia and you are a poor match. In the event, I was also agreeing with your main point, to wit, that Australians enjoy too few civil rights. But that's merely incidental, this is all about YOU.
I told you that you'd find my views incomprehensible
And in that you could not have been more wrong. You are (at least in respect of this topic) an open book. A book, notwithstanding your quirky self-image as "DANGEROUS," read many times before.
The only thing approaching "baffling" is how someone who so compulsively writes about themselves can imagine they are any less transparent than a clear plastic bag. You're a legend in your own lunchtime mate.
Its what I need to immigrate. Without that... I refuse. You're not offering me real citizenship in my opinion if you don't offer me a reasonable set of iron clad rights in the package.
We're not offering you citizenship at all. This is for wealthy and successful business people and by invitation only. And with all due respect, if you have such a great need to be DANGEROUS... fine, just please do it elsewhere thanks. You'd also hate, I'd hazard, the duty to vote which pertains to Australian citizenship.
OTOH a Bill of Rights (along the lines of the 4th and 5th rather than the 2nd) for Australia might be a good thing. A basket of "iron-clad rights" would be nice just about now. Unfortunately changing the Australian Constitution is exceedingly difficult and a Bill of Rights is unlikely to make it past a population which harbours a (to me) baffling scepticism regarding such instruments.
The job of the NSA is to spy and if they don't spy on everything spyable they aren't doing their job. Can't even figure out why this would worthy of a./ headline.
The issue here is not so much that the NSA spied on the French president. The issue is that said spying has been revealed. That will always rate a mention.
I imagine the French, and anyone else, fully expect US (and every other nation's) intelligence services to try to spy on them. However, once the beans have been spilled the French President can hardly respond with a simple 'méh!'
What is interesting for the rest of us, and the reason it merits a/. headline, is that our prior suspicions are receiving documentary confirmation.
Hence why I specifically said that the mandatory label should clearly state that they have no medical efficacy. I doubt they'd sell many "remedies" that way, but if they want to try, I don't see why not.
The problem with that is that because the effect of homeopathy relies exclusively on the belief in its efficacy, requiring such labels runs the risk of lowering the rate of desirable placebo cures. If someone can drink a little vial of water and be cured of, say, electromagnetic hypersensitivity syndrome (and remember, modern medicine has no treatment for EHS;), that is a good thing.
The real issue is how to stream patients who require something more substantial than water away from homeopathy and towards that suitable therapy.
the critical question for a programming language is less whether it is itself open source and more whether it's feasible to make open source software with it.
I have to disagree - a language which only has one single implementation which is closed source means that the developers using it is locked in and completely at the mercy of the owners of this implementation. Just like with VB6.
The point that was being made was simply to raise the question: Will an open-sourced Swift have any realistic application other than writing software exclusively for iOS and OSX. If it can't, you should find yourself every bit as locked in and at the mercy of the owners of the ecosystem, as if you were locked in by the owners of a proprietary language.
You should apply some kinetic energy to a mixture of oil and water sometime, and see how it looks.
Better still use a mixture of vinegar and oil, (with a little added pepper, salt and dried herb), and then apply some kinetic energy. That way you can have your demonstration and eat it too.
[The judges] do not want to give the impression of colluding with fugitives, since that could undermine the public confidence in the legal system.
You've just hit the nail on the head. Bear in mind they were not merely listening to Mr Assange, but were to appear along with him as fellow speakers.
But the judges instead give the impression of not understanding... what is going on.
I was under the impression that they had, in effect, been ambushed. The inclusion of Mr Assange as a fellow speaker was, to quote the Judicial Office, "at short notice and without consultation." So they freely admit they did not know this was going to happen. (If this is what you meant by not understanding what is going on).
Now the judges seem biased in favor of the established powers, blind to the allegations of abuse of powers.
They should seem so only to those ignorant of the reason the judges felt compelled to withdraw. Since you have enunciated that reason so succinctly, you of all people ought not to succumb to that unfounded interpretation.
Assange himself is a hypocrite and a coward, and I'd deport him in a second if I had any say in the matter.
Fortunately the UK has judges of the calibre of Lords Gill, Neuberger and Hodge who, on trusts, would require an actual criminal offence or some other lawful reason, and evidence sufficient to meet the requisite standard of proof, before deporting anyone.
Apart from your dislike for Assange (which is a personal opinon your welcome to of course, I simply don't share it), I think your comment is bang on the money.
Indeed, speaks volumes about our corrupted 'judges' doesn't it.
No it doesn't! Quite the opposite, the judges acted with the highest probity in this instance. Read the pertinent sentence in the summary again: "Mr Assange is, as a matter of law, currently a fugitive from justice, and it would therefore not be appropriate for judges to be addressed by him." Their participation would have been corrupt. [Emphasis added]
We cannot from this action determine if they have antipathy or sympathy for Assange and his cause. And that's just the point. On a purely personal basis they might support him as much as you or I. But they were there as judges and as such they are required to put aside their personal opinions and act as the ethics of their high office demands.
[T]here is a case for capital punishment inflating the death toll even when not counting the capital punishment itself. If you face a likely death penalty, there is no incentive for you to not kill others. Killing others, like witnesses, can then be rationalized by it reducing the risk of getting caught, and thus die.
This resembles the argument that were we to make rape, for example, a capital crime, we should only be aiding the rapist to reach the decision whether "merely" to rape his victim, or to kill her into the bargain. (The gendered language I here employ, if it be 'sexist,' is by no means casual.)
You may well be correct especially in the case of criminal organisations inclined towards rational, albeit ruthless, calculation. Generally however, arguments based upon deterrent and incentive, as they pertain to the ordinary felon one imagines inhabiting death row, need IMO, to be approached with some caution.
In the first place, there being little to prefer in a life-long custodial sentence, capital punishment per se may not add too great a store of incentive to deal mercilessly with those whose knowledge might betray the original crime. Instead this problem may be one born of draconian punishment generally. Where there exists no chance of redemption, one will not be motivated to redeem oneself.
Secondly, --and this applies more properly to those arguments which, in ignorance to the insight you provide, regard the threat execution as providing a greater disincentive, --I think it an error to imagine that ordinary felon as a rational maximiser of utility. Choosing between two situations, one in which murderers instinctively covers their tracks by the commission of further crimes; and one in which they calmly determine the scale of their offending in consideration the probable sentencing outcomes, I find the former by far the more likely.
Well let's not seal them in dungeons then! Absolutely let's house them in secure facilities. But let's also give them whatever assistance we can reasonably afford, to allow them to live their lives in the most meaningful way possible, while still conforming to the imperative of keeping them locked safely away from the rest of us.
Some might even create some socially useful output to repay our kindness. Who knows, even Hans Reiser may still have some useful contribution left in him?
Strange that as opposition to the death penalty hardens, euthanasia is becoming accepted.
This is just rampant individualism isn't it? I mean imagine allowing people themselves the right to decide when (and when not) to die? Thank goodness I'll be able to sleep soundly at night know that you, at least, are left to argue for the rights of the state to make our life and death decisions for us!
If the only option to not killing a killer is to let them kill the innocent, then it's right to kill them.
And it's upon that basis, --i.e. that one ought to act to minimise the number of premature human deaths, --that a strong argument against capital punishment turns. For a prisoner already held safely in the custody of the state will not usually by their execution reduce the number of deaths. Quite the opposite: executing such prisoner generally acts to inflate the toll.
Now there may be a special case when a prisoner has confederates, out of custody, who would kidnap and murder in an attempt to free the prisoner. In that case putting the prisoner to death may well, by removing the motivation for these new crimes, reduce the total number of premature deaths. However, such a scenario must be rare, and how many of the people murdered* by the state actually fall into it?
*[Yes, I do appreciate that 'murder' implies an unlawful taking of human life.]
As an atheist, there is nothing wrong with killing.
Quite the opposite. As an atheist one ought to appreciate the permanence of death; that human life is brief enough already; and that each and every human consciousness provides a valuable, unique, never to be repeated perspective on the universe. It's different if one believes that this life is but nothing to the one that follows, but atheists especially have the opportunity of grasping the gravity of extinguishing a human consciousness prematurely. This is an opportunity, apparently, you have still to take.
There is no right, there is no wrong. Don't try to push your warped sense of morality on others.
If there were no right nor wrong, then executing a murderer (who in your view has done no wrong) must be the ultimate form of pushing one's morality on others! If there are no ethical concerns in your mind is there at least the flicker of logical consistency (such as would require you, upon the basis you have enunciated, to oppose capital punishment)?
I realize you think "natural" is synonymous with perfect holiness and righteousness, but this is a science topic, so please keep your arguments rational.
You need to read that comment in context: It was a response to the statement: "A bigger question is whether or not man should attempt to interfere with the naturally changing climate of the Earth."
To correct the misapprehension that AGW is "natural," or rather to point out the fallacious reasoning --that "climate change occurs in nature, therefore all climate change is natural" implicit in that statement, --does not involve any claim that "natural" is "synonymous with perfect holiness and righteousness." So please keep your arguments rational.
Slashdot Mirror
I want to add if the rains never return to Calif, this will be very serious.
It seems unlikely that the rains will never return. The more serious threat of climate change over the longer term is that drought patterns may be exacerbated.
Those claiming that rains will not only find themselves discredited when the rains return (as they assuredly will), they will have provided more ammunition to those determined to stymie meaningful action on anthropogenic Global Warming. Don't do it!
The Lady doth protest too much, methinks.
And as to your opinions of my needs
My opinion merely agrees with yours: Australia and you are a poor match. In the event, I was also agreeing with your main point, to wit, that Australians enjoy too few civil rights. But that's merely incidental, this is all about YOU.
I told you that you'd find my views incomprehensible
And in that you could not have been more wrong. You are (at least in respect of this topic) an open book. A book, notwithstanding your quirky self-image as "DANGEROUS," read many times before. The only thing approaching "baffling" is how someone who so compulsively writes about themselves can imagine they are any less transparent than a clear plastic bag. You're a legend in your own lunchtime mate.
Its what I need to immigrate. Without that... I refuse. You're not offering me real citizenship in my opinion if you don't offer me a reasonable set of iron clad rights in the package.
We're not offering you citizenship at all. This is for wealthy and successful business people and by invitation only. And with all due respect, if you have such a great need to be DANGEROUS ... fine, just please do it elsewhere thanks. You'd also hate, I'd hazard, the duty to vote which pertains to Australian citizenship.
OTOH a Bill of Rights (along the lines of the 4th and 5th rather than the 2nd) for Australia might be a good thing. A basket of "iron-clad rights" would be nice just about now. Unfortunately changing the Australian Constitution is exceedingly difficult and a Bill of Rights is unlikely to make it past a population which harbours a (to me) baffling scepticism regarding such instruments.
The job of the NSA is to spy and if they don't spy on everything spyable they aren't doing their job. Can't even figure out why this would worthy of a ./ headline.
The issue here is not so much that the NSA spied on the French president. The issue is that said spying has been revealed. That will always rate a mention.
I imagine the French, and anyone else, fully expect US (and every other nation's) intelligence services to try to spy on them. However, once the beans have been spilled the French President can hardly respond with a simple 'méh!'
What is interesting for the rest of us, and the reason it merits a /. headline, is that our prior suspicions are receiving documentary confirmation.
Well if it were not measurable it wouldn't be a placebo either, would it? What do you think 'placebo' means?
Hence why I specifically said that the mandatory label should clearly state that they have no medical efficacy. I doubt they'd sell many "remedies" that way, but if they want to try, I don't see why not.
The problem with that is that because the effect of homeopathy relies exclusively on the belief in its efficacy, requiring such labels runs the risk of lowering the rate of desirable placebo cures. If someone can drink a little vial of water and be cured of, say, electromagnetic hypersensitivity syndrome (and remember, modern medicine has no treatment for EHS ;), that is a good thing.
The real issue is how to stream patients who require something more substantial than water away from homeopathy and towards that suitable therapy.
the critical question for a programming language is less whether it is itself open source and more whether it's feasible to make open source software with it.
I have to disagree - a language which only has one single implementation which is closed source means that the developers using it is locked in and completely at the mercy of the owners of this implementation. Just like with VB6.
The point that was being made was simply to raise the question: Will an open-sourced Swift have any realistic application other than writing software exclusively for iOS and OSX. If it can't, you should find yourself every bit as locked in and at the mercy of the owners of the ecosystem, as if you were locked in by the owners of a proprietary language.
... and I'd like to add ...
Wake up SHEEPLE!!! Italian dressing ISN'T REAL! .... stupid rubes.
Yup ... or "French Dressing" for that matter. It's a vinaigrette.
You should apply some kinetic energy to a mixture of oil and water sometime, and see how it looks.
Better still use a mixture of vinegar and oil, (with a little added pepper, salt and dried herb), and then apply some kinetic energy. That way you can have your demonstration and eat it too.
[Y]ou must be one of the people who think 2 + 2 = 5 for large values of 2.
Well obviously 2 + 2 never equals 5, duh! ...
2 + 2 approaches 5 as the value of 2 grows
there is a limit to everything ... everyone suffers
And thus those few defeat us.
It's only those posting as ACs that favour privacy too much.
[The judges] do not want to give the impression of colluding with fugitives, since that could undermine the public confidence in the legal system.
You've just hit the nail on the head. Bear in mind they were not merely listening to Mr Assange, but were to appear along with him as fellow speakers.
But the judges instead give the impression of not understanding ... what is going on.
I was under the impression that they had, in effect, been ambushed. The inclusion of Mr Assange as a fellow speaker was, to quote the Judicial Office, "at short notice and without consultation." So they freely admit they did not know this was going to happen. (If this is what you meant by not understanding what is going on).
Now the judges seem biased in favor of the established powers, blind to the allegations of abuse of powers.
They should seem so only to those ignorant of the reason the judges felt compelled to withdraw. Since you have enunciated that reason so succinctly, you of all people ought not to succumb to that unfounded interpretation.
Assange himself is a hypocrite and a coward, and I'd deport him in a second if I had any say in the matter.
Fortunately the UK has judges of the calibre of Lords Gill, Neuberger and Hodge who, on trusts, would require an actual criminal offence or some other lawful reason, and evidence sufficient to meet the requisite standard of proof, before deporting anyone.
Apart from your dislike for Assange (which is a personal opinon your welcome to of course, I simply don't share it), I think your comment is bang on the money.
Indeed, speaks volumes about our corrupted 'judges' doesn't it.
No it doesn't! Quite the opposite, the judges acted with the highest probity in this instance. Read the pertinent sentence in the summary again: "Mr Assange is, as a matter of law, currently a fugitive from justice, and it would therefore not be appropriate for judges to be addressed by him." Their participation would have been corrupt. [Emphasis added]
We cannot from this action determine if they have antipathy or sympathy for Assange and his cause. And that's just the point. On a purely personal basis they might support him as much as you or I. But they were there as judges and as such they are required to put aside their personal opinions and act as the ethics of their high office demands.
[T]here is a case for capital punishment inflating the death toll even when not counting the capital punishment itself. If you face a likely death penalty, there is no incentive for you to not kill others. Killing others, like witnesses, can then be rationalized by it reducing the risk of getting caught, and thus die.
This resembles the argument that were we to make rape, for example, a capital crime, we should only be aiding the rapist to reach the decision whether "merely" to rape his victim, or to kill her into the bargain. (The gendered language I here employ, if it be 'sexist,' is by no means casual.)
You may well be correct especially in the case of criminal organisations inclined towards rational, albeit ruthless, calculation. Generally however, arguments based upon deterrent and incentive, as they pertain to the ordinary felon one imagines inhabiting death row, need IMO, to be approached with some caution.
In the first place, there being little to prefer in a life-long custodial sentence, capital punishment per se may not add too great a store of incentive to deal mercilessly with those whose knowledge might betray the original crime. Instead this problem may be one born of draconian punishment generally. Where there exists no chance of redemption, one will not be motivated to redeem oneself.
Secondly, --and this applies more properly to those arguments which, in ignorance to the insight you provide, regard the threat execution as providing a greater disincentive, --I think it an error to imagine that ordinary felon as a rational maximiser of utility. Choosing between two situations, one in which murderers instinctively covers their tracks by the commission of further crimes; and one in which they calmly determine the scale of their offending in consideration the probable sentencing outcomes, I find the former by far the more likely.
Sealing people in dungeons is somehow nicer?
Well let's not seal them in dungeons then! Absolutely let's house them in secure facilities. But let's also give them whatever assistance we can reasonably afford, to allow them to live their lives in the most meaningful way possible, while still conforming to the imperative of keeping them locked safely away from the rest of us.
Some might even create some socially useful output to repay our kindness. Who knows, even Hans Reiser may still have some useful contribution left in him?
Strange that as opposition to the death penalty hardens, euthanasia is becoming accepted.
This is just rampant individualism isn't it? I mean imagine allowing people themselves the right to decide when (and when not) to die? Thank goodness I'll be able to sleep soundly at night know that you, at least, are left to argue for the rights of the state to make our life and death decisions for us!
If the only option to not killing a killer is to let them kill the innocent, then it's right to kill them.
And it's upon that basis, --i.e. that one ought to act to minimise the number of premature human deaths, --that a strong argument against capital punishment turns. For a prisoner already held safely in the custody of the state will not usually by their execution reduce the number of deaths. Quite the opposite: executing such prisoner generally acts to inflate the toll.
Now there may be a special case when a prisoner has confederates, out of custody, who would kidnap and murder in an attempt to free the prisoner. In that case putting the prisoner to death may well, by removing the motivation for these new crimes, reduce the total number of premature deaths. However, such a scenario must be rare, and how many of the people murdered* by the state actually fall into it?
*[Yes, I do appreciate that 'murder' implies an unlawful taking of human life.]
As an atheist, there is nothing wrong with killing.
Quite the opposite. As an atheist one ought to appreciate the permanence of death; that human life is brief enough already; and that each and every human consciousness provides a valuable, unique, never to be repeated perspective on the universe. It's different if one believes that this life is but nothing to the one that follows, but atheists especially have the opportunity of grasping the gravity of extinguishing a human consciousness prematurely. This is an opportunity, apparently, you have still to take.
There is no right, there is no wrong. Don't try to push your warped sense of morality on others.
If there were no right nor wrong, then executing a murderer (who in your view has done no wrong) must be the ultimate form of pushing one's morality on others! If there are no ethical concerns in your mind is there at least the flicker of logical consistency (such as would require you, upon the basis you have enunciated, to oppose capital punishment)?
A literal ad hominem.
No it isn't. OP was attacking an organisation. ;)
I think I did say Gore is full of shit
But not nearly so full of shit as the Daily Mail.
I realize you think "natural" is synonymous with perfect holiness and righteousness, but this is a science topic, so please keep your arguments rational.
You need to read that comment in context: It was a response to the statement: "A bigger question is whether or not man should attempt to interfere with the naturally changing climate of the Earth."
To correct the misapprehension that AGW is "natural," or rather to point out the fallacious reasoning --that "climate change occurs in nature, therefore all climate change is natural" implicit in that statement, --does not involve any claim that "natural" is "synonymous with perfect holiness and righteousness." So please keep your arguments rational.
And multiplying by 1.6 isn't really all that stressful to those of us bright enough to handle decimal points....
It would have been much neater if they could have just made the mile a nice, round 1.5km ... ;)