So then this "nullity" just serves to make any value x for f(x)=(x)*(nullity) equal to any other number in R, all at once. That's either profound and interesting, or silly and impossible. Reminds me of quantum mechanics...
Oh boy, as a Quebec resident and a victim of a rural Anglophone school board (WQSB), this is dead on.
I arrived at the high school in Shawville from Ontario high school back in 1998. The culture shock was of course immense... a rural school with kids with immense behavioural problems. Some teachers were awesome... others were nutjobs. Total nutjobs. One of them must have been 80 years old and was still teaching English, inflicting countless years of pain on students. My girlfriend's cousin got labelled "Easy Erin" by this teacher as a nickname, which of course is an awesome thing to call a teenage girl.
One teacher was caught masturbating in his office by a student. The incident was covered up and the teacher remained teaching at the school, only in a reduced capacity (this happened the year before I arrived). My god that man was creepy. Another threw desks at the students when they were misbehaving (yes, picked them up and tossed them at the students, full force). Granted these students were pure assholes, most of them. They were potheads and drug addicts back in high school, now I wouldn't be surprised if they're living on welfare and spending their cash on booze and weed exclusively. I think it's the entire system, students and teachers, that's immensely fucked up. I remember nothing like this happening at my schools in Ontario, where people were sane.
In my sophomore year the school spent a couple thousand dollars building a special spot for the cigarette smokers right outside the school's main entrance and bus loading zone. It was promptly rendered useless this year by a provincial law banning smoking on school property. Looking back on it, I really had no idea just how crazy they had to have been to have done that.
Teachers more or less have lifelong tenure unless they're substitutes. Those guys quit often... like Mr. Reilley. My girlfriend and I were in his Grade 10 French class when the following "gun" incident happened:
As a side note, the student was a known prankster and was just fooling with the teacher, because we thought he was cool. He wouldn't have hurt a soul.
I also used to live just up the street from the school in question in the article while I was going to CEGEP, Ecole Secondaire Mont-Bleu. I hated the fucking students. Rude assmunchers. Although, their school isn't much better. My girlfriend always said it looked like a prison. It had loudspeakers outside the building where an incomprehensible (think Charley Brown adult speak) voice would summon the students back to class every few hours. The lands around it are bleak, save a racetrack out back and a ski lodge nearby. What a sad place to spend your adolescence. Half the school population can be found out front of the school at lunch taking up the French smoking addiction and stinking up the neighbourhood.
Overall, I'd have to say the WQSB (at least in Shawville) is pure fucking insanity rolled into a pipe and smoked sideways, save a few shining stars. I imagine the Franco school board is worse. The teachers are rarely turned over, and new blood is churned out of the system at an alarming rate because the students are hell to teach. That is my personal evaluation, take from it what you will, because I was there.
And here I am still in my undergrad. I want to get into research, dammit! I mean, just yesterday, that discovery about human genetics rendered my Mendelian genetics class obsolete. At this rate by the time I have my honours degree we'll be bioengineering whole organs and knocking down genetic diseases like flies.
The idea of having a national blacklist sends shivers down my spine. I'm a pessimist, I believe that any form of censorship will eventually be abused despite it's good intentions.
I'm sure the outrage has you foaming at the mouth, and is palpably dripping from your chin as we speak. But hold your horses.
We are not talking about silencing political speech here. Canada is not China, period. We have had laws against hate crimes and child porn for quite awhile now, and there are specific exceptions allowed in our constitution such that there can be no hiding behind the banner of free speech for these things. They are, unequivocably, criminal acts.
If any sites of note are wrongly blocked, you will hear about it very quickly. Again, we are not China, and news travels fast. The potential for abuse here is small.
You seem to be unaware that the Eastern Roman Empire survived for a thousand years following the fall of the Western, and that it retained a (highly valued) government currency throughout. You may recognize its name - the Solidus, and it was the most stable and highest valued currency throughout the "Dark Ages" and beyond.
The Eastern Empire is currently (for semantic reasons only) known as the Byzantine Empire. I encourage you to research it, but I will leave you to one link on the subject of money that you may find interesting.
Agnostics and Atheists dismiss gods, not faith. Most (I would argue nearly all) still have faith in mankind, and that is what their moral foundation rests on.
Once again, the boogeyman gets drawn out of the closet, "Atheists have no Gods therefore they have no Morals!", which is untrue, or else they'd all be out in the street killing people for fun.
If you do not understand how a person can have morals and not believe in a god or gods, the problem is not with them, my friend, it is with you.
I need a stamp for threads like this that reads "TREATY OF TRIPOLI" in big, bold letters.
From Article 11 of the treaty, as approved by the Senate and signed by President John Adams in 1796:
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
Some ways of running societies work better than others. People are what they are. The neurons are arranged as they are arranged. There will exist a system for coordinating among people that is better than the others, or at least equal to the best. We call this system a society, and it has rules.
Many rules have come to us from the various religions of the world, which themselves are based on philosophies of sorts. They are welcome additions. It is not necessary, however, to believe in gods in order to obey rules, and it is not necessary to believe in a god to believe in mankind, and that mankind's betterment is best served when society works well.
What you don't seem to understand, my friend, is that atheism is not a rejection of faith, merely a rejection of gods. We can still have faith in principles, such as the idea of mankind, which gives our rules, society's rules, weight and reason.
The forced use of Latin DNS characters is a normalizing force towards the western alphabet, and should be embraced for being such. It can only be better for everyone involved, in the long run, if we all end up using the same alphabet.
Cancer cells usually have a single, or perhaps two or three mutations that render them malignant. They are not mutating as often as something like AIDS (which mutates often, but not as rapidly as many think).
Indeed, were the cancer cells mutating as fast as you suggest, we wouldn't need to treat cancer; the cancer cells would eventually mutate so much so as to be unable to duplicate their chromosomes anymore, and all cancers would be self-containing. That isn't what happens, obviously.
Nanites don't need to mutate. A single sampling of the genome of the cancer can be taken, the mutations found (as compared to normal cells), and then they will be programmed. And it will work.
The verb "to be" is 'intransitive' and does not take an object. It relates subjects to each other. Each 'end' of the verb needs to be in the subjective case.
Who is who?
However, the verb "to love" is transitive. It takes an object. Thus:
Whom do you love?
Learning some Latin will help you realize these differences, and how easy it is to live in a world of two cases (objective, subjective) rather than six or seven.
Considering the wolves would die after that vote if the sheep got its way, it being a fact that wolves can't eat grass, would preventing the wolves from eating the sheep be ethical?
I think the moral question is more that quarantine assumes that someone with the virus would knowingly infect others.
A certain percentage do, certainly. That's the problem.
Essentially I see your argument as being: "Certain people's feelings are more important than other people's lives."
Unlike normal acts of violence which are isolated incidents with a single perpetrator and victim, a virus once spread creates a new possible perpetrator for each new victim. It is as if every murdered person were to rise immediately as a zombie (forgive the analogy) and begin killing others, who in turn would rise as zombies... I hope you get my point, because that analogy makes me laugh.
Anyway, the point is this. There will always be a percentage of infected persons with HIV who will spread the virus along if not quarantined. The spread of the virus in the wild is proof of this. They either don't know they have it, don't want to know if they have it, or don't care that they have it. Then by engaging in risky behaviour, they spread the virus onto new victims, who are now possible perpetrators, and it continues...
You attempt to do two things in your post: To define all persons who are 'sick' as being contagious, and to raise the spectre of the 'slippery slope' fallacy. In refutation, cancer is not contagious although its suffers are sick, and a quarantine on HIV would not necessarily lead to a quarantine on sufferers of other viral infections. Unlike the flu or a cold, HIV is lethal every single time it is contracted (bar a one-in-a-million exception).
You'll forgive me then if I find your assertions unconvincing, and indeed, morally wanting. I value human life above simple sentiment.
Slashdot Mirror
So then this "nullity" just serves to make any value x for f(x)=(x)*(nullity) equal to any other number in R, all at once. That's either profound and interesting, or silly and impossible. Reminds me of quantum mechanics...
+1 Laughably Sad
Oh, how I want that option right now.
Oh boy, as a Quebec resident and a victim of a rural Anglophone school board (WQSB), this is dead on.
0 0508.html
I arrived at the high school in Shawville from Ontario high school back in 1998. The culture shock was of course immense... a rural school with kids with immense behavioural problems. Some teachers were awesome... others were nutjobs. Total nutjobs. One of them must have been 80 years old and was still teaching English, inflicting countless years of pain on students. My girlfriend's cousin got labelled "Easy Erin" by this teacher as a nickname, which of course is an awesome thing to call a teenage girl.
One teacher was caught masturbating in his office by a student. The incident was covered up and the teacher remained teaching at the school, only in a reduced capacity (this happened the year before I arrived). My god that man was creepy. Another threw desks at the students when they were misbehaving (yes, picked them up and tossed them at the students, full force). Granted these students were pure assholes, most of them. They were potheads and drug addicts back in high school, now I wouldn't be surprised if they're living on welfare and spending their cash on booze and weed exclusively. I think it's the entire system, students and teachers, that's immensely fucked up. I remember nothing like this happening at my schools in Ontario, where people were sane.
In my sophomore year the school spent a couple thousand dollars building a special spot for the cigarette smokers right outside the school's main entrance and bus loading zone. It was promptly rendered useless this year by a provincial law banning smoking on school property. Looking back on it, I really had no idea just how crazy they had to have been to have done that.
Teachers more or less have lifelong tenure unless they're substitutes. Those guys quit often... like Mr. Reilley. My girlfriend and I were in his Grade 10 French class when the following "gun" incident happened:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2000/05/09/gunstory0
As a side note, the student was a known prankster and was just fooling with the teacher, because we thought he was cool. He wouldn't have hurt a soul.
I also used to live just up the street from the school in question in the article while I was going to CEGEP, Ecole Secondaire Mont-Bleu. I hated the fucking students. Rude assmunchers. Although, their school isn't much better. My girlfriend always said it looked like a prison. It had loudspeakers outside the building where an incomprehensible (think Charley Brown adult speak) voice would summon the students back to class every few hours. The lands around it are bleak, save a racetrack out back and a ski lodge nearby. What a sad place to spend your adolescence. Half the school population can be found out front of the school at lunch taking up the French smoking addiction and stinking up the neighbourhood.
Overall, I'd have to say the WQSB (at least in Shawville) is pure fucking insanity rolled into a pipe and smoked sideways, save a few shining stars. I imagine the Franco school board is worse. The teachers are rarely turned over, and new blood is churned out of the system at an alarming rate because the students are hell to teach. That is my personal evaluation, take from it what you will, because I was there.
And here I am still in my undergrad. I want to get into research, dammit! I mean, just yesterday, that discovery about human genetics rendered my Mendelian genetics class obsolete. At this rate by the time I have my honours degree we'll be bioengineering whole organs and knocking down genetic diseases like flies.
I'm sure the outrage has you foaming at the mouth, and is palpably dripping from your chin as we speak. But hold your horses.
We are not talking about silencing political speech here. Canada is not China, period. We have had laws against hate crimes and child porn for quite awhile now, and there are specific exceptions allowed in our constitution such that there can be no hiding behind the banner of free speech for these things. They are, unequivocably, criminal acts.
If any sites of note are wrongly blocked, you will hear about it very quickly. Again, we are not China, and news travels fast. The potential for abuse here is small.
Greetings.
You seem to be unaware that the Eastern Roman Empire survived for a thousand years following the fall of the Western, and that it retained a (highly valued) government currency throughout. You may recognize its name - the Solidus, and it was the most stable and highest valued currency throughout the "Dark Ages" and beyond.
The Eastern Empire is currently (for semantic reasons only) known as the Byzantine Empire. I encourage you to research it, but I will leave you to one link on the subject of money that you may find interesting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_coinage
Are you still here?
Agnostics and Atheists dismiss gods, not faith. Most (I would argue nearly all) still have faith in mankind, and that is what their moral foundation rests on.
Once again, the boogeyman gets drawn out of the closet, "Atheists have no Gods therefore they have no Morals!", which is untrue, or else they'd all be out in the street killing people for fun.
If you do not understand how a person can have morals and not believe in a god or gods, the problem is not with them, my friend, it is with you.
True, but there's nothing wrong with disallowing the expression of lies. Fraud is a crime, after all.
From Article 11 of the treaty, as approved by the Senate and signed by President John Adams in 1796:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli
The founding fathers were Deists, not Christian fundamentalists.
Yup.
Some ways of running societies work better than others. People are what they are. The neurons are arranged as they are arranged. There will exist a system for coordinating among people that is better than the others, or at least equal to the best. We call this system a society, and it has rules.
Many rules have come to us from the various religions of the world, which themselves are based on philosophies of sorts. They are welcome additions. It is not necessary, however, to believe in gods in order to obey rules, and it is not necessary to believe in a god to believe in mankind, and that mankind's betterment is best served when society works well.
What you don't seem to understand, my friend, is that atheism is not a rejection of faith, merely a rejection of gods. We can still have faith in principles, such as the idea of mankind, which gives our rules, society's rules, weight and reason.
The forced use of Latin DNS characters is a normalizing force towards the western alphabet, and should be embraced for being such. It can only be better for everyone involved, in the long run, if we all end up using the same alphabet.
Mod parent up please. That's dead-on.
Atheists do not believe in gods. They can still believe in man. There is no contradiction.
Unfortunately it relies on Deux ex Machina to work, like most tech writing does. "The worm mutates, and then a miracle happens". Not believable.
Cancer cells usually have a single, or perhaps two or three mutations that render them malignant. They are not mutating as often as something like AIDS (which mutates often, but not as rapidly as many think).
Indeed, were the cancer cells mutating as fast as you suggest, we wouldn't need to treat cancer; the cancer cells would eventually mutate so much so as to be unable to duplicate their chromosomes anymore, and all cancers would be self-containing. That isn't what happens, obviously.
Nanites don't need to mutate. A single sampling of the genome of the cancer can be taken, the mutations found (as compared to normal cells), and then they will be programmed. And it will work.
Grazie per l'informazione! =)
Justin Long as there will be new ads. I'm Justin love with the current ones, personally.
We already do.
Nice meta-analysis. Slashdot needs more of this.
n/t
To make it clearer...
The verb "to be" is 'intransitive' and does not take an object. It relates subjects to each other. Each 'end' of the verb needs to be in the subjective case.
Who is who?
However, the verb "to love" is transitive. It takes an object. Thus:
Whom do you love?
Learning some Latin will help you realize these differences, and how easy it is to live in a world of two cases (objective, subjective) rather than six or seven.
Considering the wolves would die after that vote if the sheep got its way, it being a fact that wolves can't eat grass, would preventing the wolves from eating the sheep be ethical?
Censorship and speech issues aside, should we really be encouraging gay witch-hunts like this?
A certain percentage do, certainly. That's the problem.
Essentially I see your argument as being: "Certain people's feelings are more important than other people's lives."
Unlike normal acts of violence which are isolated incidents with a single perpetrator and victim, a virus once spread creates a new possible perpetrator for each new victim. It is as if every murdered person were to rise immediately as a zombie (forgive the analogy) and begin killing others, who in turn would rise as zombies... I hope you get my point, because that analogy makes me laugh.
Anyway, the point is this. There will always be a percentage of infected persons with HIV who will spread the virus along if not quarantined. The spread of the virus in the wild is proof of this. They either don't know they have it, don't want to know if they have it, or don't care that they have it. Then by engaging in risky behaviour, they spread the virus onto new victims, who are now possible perpetrators, and it continues...
You attempt to do two things in your post: To define all persons who are 'sick' as being contagious, and to raise the spectre of the 'slippery slope' fallacy. In refutation, cancer is not contagious although its suffers are sick, and a quarantine on HIV would not necessarily lead to a quarantine on sufferers of other viral infections. Unlike the flu or a cold, HIV is lethal every single time it is contracted (bar a one-in-a-million exception).
You'll forgive me then if I find your assertions unconvincing, and indeed, morally wanting. I value human life above simple sentiment.