Same point: they are not just protesting wind turbines; the headline takes several such nuances out of the issue, catering to a world that wants to see every issue as pro/con black/white. The takeaway is "they oppose wind turbines," which they do not.
I noticed the headline said "Canadians protest wind turbines," and I thought, "That sounds really silly; I'll send it to my wife to see if she gets a laugh out of it." Then I opened up the story and saw the truth: "Canadians protest subsidization of wind turbines." There's a huge difference there, and I think it's often lost in public discourse.
I would be opposed to taking tax dollars to buy Bibles to distribute in public schools. I sure would be upset if I were misrepresented as opposing Bibles, or favoring censorship of the Bible, or some other such slant. Opposing subsidization is really, really radically different from opposing the thing being subsidized.
Perhaps we needn't worry so much about "millions of gallons of radioactive water" being released into the ocean, like it's a major environmental disaster, as it's really not â" the ocean is many orders of magnitude larger than any accidental release of radiation which might happen from a nuclear plant
I don't know about you guys, but I read that as "freely dump all radioactive waste you want into the ocean," so let's get busy rimming every continent with coastal reactors and solving the energy crisis with no thought of tomorrow!
In fact, if the ocean can handle radioactive waste, it can probably handle anything else, too, so I think I just found a great place for all our nonrecyclable plastic and toxic sludge...
The pivotal year 1940 'marked the beginnings of a shift from a depressed peacetime to a prosperous wartime
Baloney. Wartime might appear more prosperous in that a lot of people were suddenly "employed" by the government who were previous unemployed, but everyone still lived under rationing and scarcity. Real economic recovery didn't happen until 1946.
One feature I loved and haven't seen duplicated on any other OS is the ability to create a work folder. Not sure the actual term for it any more but if you put a shortcut to an application/spreadsheet/document in that folder and set the folder as active whenever you opened that folder every one of those items would come up front and center
Sheesh, I can do that with a simple shell script! I can't understand why my OS hasn't caught on...
This right here is why "the market" is insufficient protection for consumer rights. We need a law requiring credit card companies to disclose businesses that compromise data.
You have not tested "the market." You have tested "the market with regulation." If you had tested "the market," then you could take your business elsewhere to someone who tells you what you need to know.
So, self-identified conservatives seem to lump these groups together and rally around the notion that what makes "us" conservatives is that we don't agree with "them."'"
With liberals it's completely different; with liberals, it's the other way around.
(Personally, I'm convinced the areas where conservatives and liberals agree are more numerous and far more frightening than the issues on which they don't.)
This took place in a country outside of the United States. They don't have the first amendment. If a person is guilty of "inciting racial hatred" and they admit to it, as is the case here, then they are punishable by local law.
Such a local law is blatantly immoral, and enforcement of it is as blatantly immoral as a cop cooperating to deny a black man a seat on a bus. I'm sure we can find many other instances of immoral laws in the UK and the US alone. I'm sure there are worse places to live, but these places can be made better by outlawing such immorality instead of enshrining it in law.
I guess I'm just out of it. When I was a boy I'd go to Toys R Us and see an entire aisle of board games, for all ages. Everybody had a closet full, and everybody played them with their family and friends.
Am I to understand that this behavior is not actually mainstream? Monopoly, Risk, Parcheesi, these aren't mainstream? Or is there some class of board games here that are not mainstream? I'll admit not everyone knows about Settlers of Catan and such.
Yes, I am disturbed, and the 1984 resonance hits home with me immediately. If the head of the organization was actually from the government, doesn't that mean that this whole deal was entrapment?
Judging by your source links (e.g., the FSP), I think it's a safe bet you have an interest in libertarianism. If so, I would strongly recommend that book from my original post: Whatever Happened to Justice? It'll talk a lot about Common Law and some other things that will probably sit right with someone with libertarian leanings.
I do not believe the career incentive was the problem. I believe the idea of a group of people forcing their ideas of right and wrong on others is the problem. Every human being is an "amateur lawmaker," paid or not, using "amateur" in the sense of "not professional grade, unqualified."
Personally, I found Wesley inspiring at the time. I was a little younger than him, awkward around my peers, gifted enough to be disconcerting to both my peers and to adults, and was glad to see someone portrayed on TV I could identify with, someone who encouraged me that some day in the future there would be a time when I would be valued for my intellect and talents, and that until then while things might be awkward for me, I could be optimistic and work on advancing at my own pace in subjects that interested me. Seriously, Wesley was a hero to me at what could have been quite a depressing time in my life, and I hope CleverNickName logs in here today and sees this comment, because I've always appreciated him and would like him to know that his performance inspired me.
Fair enough, but is a customer really more likely to return a book because it depicts one kind of fantasy between consenting adults vs. another?
If Paypal believes it is risky, can you give some persuasive evidence that it is in Paypal's interest to take the risk? That's the real question, here. We don't have a right to force Paypal to serve us in circumstances they aren't willing to serve in. (And frankly, we might be better off without them, anyway.)
Wouldn't you like a place where you and a few like-minded amateur lawmakers could get together and do it right?
We already tried that. The result was Congress.
The problem is that one group thinks they know how to "do it right" and wants to impose their vision of right on others. That will always be the problem with this idea. That was the problem in 1789, and that is going to be a problem with this proposal today.
For some stimulating thinking about law, read Whatever Happened to Justice? by Richard Mayberry.
I was wrong, and you win. Back then I was right-wing. Shoot, I was a pacifist until 9/11, and yet on that day I was crying for blood. You were right. I said horrible things about you guys, and I was wrong to do that, and for that I apologize. Worse, I am guilty of calling for actions that led to the death of many innocents, as well as the accumulation of power to people who are now abusing it.
I appreciate the fact that you were speaking for truth back then, and I hope that you continue to do so for many years to come.
Things like personal like sexual preferences or a teenager quietly getting pregnant and performing an abortion, these are things you rather keep to yourself but are not (at least in liberal eyes) wrong.
If liberals don't think that a teenager quietly getting pregnant is wrong, why are they so keen to hand out condoms in schools?
I had people act like my wife and I were wrong to get pregnant, when we were married and in our twenties! Apparently you are supposed to wait until you are fifty now, or something.
It might have been best to clarify what species of adult the stem cells are harvested from, since in most news stories, "adult stem cells" typically has a connotation of adult human stem cells!
I was just thinking that if one believes that in some circumstances it is acceptable to infringe liberty to save lives, that this would be one case where a person might advocate doing so.
For what it's worth, I don't believe in socializing the prosecution of crimes and the administration of justice, so in my utopia that we'll never see, abortions (which I do believe to be the taking of a human being's life) could theoretically go unprosecuted unless some heir to the victim wanted to bear the expense of doing so. But for a variety of other reasons (including increased access to birth control) I think they would be much less frequent.
One person might be highly allergic to eggs and might not be able to get some particular vaccine as a result. However, if everybody around them isn't allergic to eggs wouldn't it be nice if they were vaccinated, thus greatly reducing the chance that any of them will get sick?
But "wouldn't it be nice" is not a good enough reason to take away people's liberty to do what they want with their own bodies.
That's why the urgent need, the thing that must happen first, is to learn how to slow the effects of aging on the brain. What good is life if you can't enjoy it? If the brain can be saved, then it might in fact be possible to develop technology to slow and reverse the effects of aging on the rest of the body, even to the point of growing replacement organs from one's own cells. And if it is possible to do this some day, it may even be possible to repair the damage done by certain types of freezing and/or vitrification, in some cases.
Slashdot Mirror
Same point: they are not just protesting wind turbines; the headline takes several such nuances out of the issue, catering to a world that wants to see every issue as pro/con black/white. The takeaway is "they oppose wind turbines," which they do not.
I noticed the headline said "Canadians protest wind turbines," and I thought, "That sounds really silly; I'll send it to my wife to see if she gets a laugh out of it." Then I opened up the story and saw the truth: "Canadians protest subsidization of wind turbines." There's a huge difference there, and I think it's often lost in public discourse.
I would be opposed to taking tax dollars to buy Bibles to distribute in public schools. I sure would be upset if I were misrepresented as opposing Bibles, or favoring censorship of the Bible, or some other such slant. Opposing subsidization is really, really radically different from opposing the thing being subsidized.
Perhaps we needn't worry so much about "millions of gallons of radioactive water" being released into the ocean, like it's a major environmental disaster, as it's really not â" the ocean is many orders of magnitude larger than any accidental release of radiation which might happen from a nuclear plant
I don't know about you guys, but I read that as "freely dump all radioactive waste you want into the ocean," so let's get busy rimming every continent with coastal reactors and solving the energy crisis with no thought of tomorrow!
In fact, if the ocean can handle radioactive waste, it can probably handle anything else, too, so I think I just found a great place for all our nonrecyclable plastic and toxic sludge...
Obligatory:
The pivotal year 1940 'marked the beginnings of a shift from a depressed peacetime to a prosperous wartime
Baloney. Wartime might appear more prosperous in that a lot of people were suddenly "employed" by the government who were previous unemployed, but everyone still lived under rationing and scarcity. Real economic recovery didn't happen until 1946.
One feature I loved and haven't seen duplicated on any other OS is the ability to create a work folder. Not sure the actual term for it any more but if you put a shortcut to an application/spreadsheet/document in that folder and set the folder as active whenever you opened that folder every one of those items would come up front and center
Sheesh, I can do that with a simple shell script! I can't understand why my OS hasn't caught on...
You assume switching credit cards and shutting down an old account is easy and consequence free.
No, I don't assume that.
Closing a credit card account impacts your credit
You assume a monopolistic credit rating system..
You assume switching from them won't impact your ability to do business with companies that only accept one or the other
No, I don't.
With nothing to require them to disclose, what real pressure is there for them to disclose? Why should they when it could cost them business to do so?
My entire thesis is that you are more likely to get this when there are true competitors, because they will happily slit each other's throats.
If the market as a whole did not care that a company killed puppies, should we allow that company to continue to do so?
Yes.
There's no reason to suspect that in this mythical "the market" you refer to, there would be someone who does tell you what you need to no.
There's certainly more reason to suspect it in that system than in the one we have now.
There is no "market" that is pure and free of all regulation.
That's like saying, in 1600s England, "There is no 'freedom of religion' that is pure and free of a state church."
This right here is why "the market" is insufficient protection for consumer rights. We need a law requiring credit card companies to disclose businesses that compromise data.
You have not tested "the market." You have tested "the market with regulation." If you had tested "the market," then you could take your business elsewhere to someone who tells you what you need to know.
So, self-identified conservatives seem to lump these groups together and rally around the notion that what makes "us" conservatives is that we don't agree with "them."'"
With liberals it's completely different; with liberals, it's the other way around.
(Personally, I'm convinced the areas where conservatives and liberals agree are more numerous and far more frightening than the issues on which they don't.)
This took place in a country outside of the United States. They don't have the first amendment. If a person is guilty of "inciting racial hatred" and they admit to it, as is the case here, then they are punishable by local law.
Such a local law is blatantly immoral, and enforcement of it is as blatantly immoral as a cop cooperating to deny a black man a seat on a bus. I'm sure we can find many other instances of immoral laws in the UK and the US alone. I'm sure there are worse places to live, but these places can be made better by outlawing such immorality instead of enshrining it in law.
Since policy inherently involves prioritizing one goal at the expense of others, what qualifies a technical researcher to answer a policy question?
I guess I'm just out of it. When I was a boy I'd go to Toys R Us and see an entire aisle of board games, for all ages. Everybody had a closet full, and everybody played them with their family and friends.
Am I to understand that this behavior is not actually mainstream? Monopoly, Risk, Parcheesi, these aren't mainstream? Or is there some class of board games here that are not mainstream? I'll admit not everyone knows about Settlers of Catan and such.
I wish I could mod this up to 6.
Yes, I am disturbed, and the 1984 resonance hits home with me immediately. If the head of the organization was actually from the government, doesn't that mean that this whole deal was entrapment?
Judging by your source links (e.g., the FSP), I think it's a safe bet you have an interest in libertarianism. If so, I would strongly recommend that book from my original post: Whatever Happened to Justice? It'll talk a lot about Common Law and some other things that will probably sit right with someone with libertarian leanings.
I do not believe the career incentive was the problem. I believe the idea of a group of people forcing their ideas of right and wrong on others is the problem. Every human being is an "amateur lawmaker," paid or not, using "amateur" in the sense of "not professional grade, unqualified."
Personally, I found Wesley inspiring at the time. I was a little younger than him, awkward around my peers, gifted enough to be disconcerting to both my peers and to adults, and was glad to see someone portrayed on TV I could identify with, someone who encouraged me that some day in the future there would be a time when I would be valued for my intellect and talents, and that until then while things might be awkward for me, I could be optimistic and work on advancing at my own pace in subjects that interested me. Seriously, Wesley was a hero to me at what could have been quite a depressing time in my life, and I hope CleverNickName logs in here today and sees this comment, because I've always appreciated him and would like him to know that his performance inspired me.
Fair enough, but is a customer really more likely to return a book because it depicts one kind of fantasy between consenting adults vs. another?
If Paypal believes it is risky, can you give some persuasive evidence that it is in Paypal's interest to take the risk? That's the real question, here. We don't have a right to force Paypal to serve us in circumstances they aren't willing to serve in. (And frankly, we might be better off without them, anyway.)
Wouldn't you like a place where you and a few like-minded amateur lawmakers could get together and do it right?
We already tried that. The result was Congress.
The problem is that one group thinks they know how to "do it right" and wants to impose their vision of right on others. That will always be the problem with this idea. That was the problem in 1789, and that is going to be a problem with this proposal today.
For some stimulating thinking about law, read Whatever Happened to Justice? by Richard Mayberry.
I was wrong, and you win. Back then I was right-wing. Shoot, I was a pacifist until 9/11, and yet on that day I was crying for blood. You were right. I said horrible things about you guys, and I was wrong to do that, and for that I apologize. Worse, I am guilty of calling for actions that led to the death of many innocents, as well as the accumulation of power to people who are now abusing it.
I appreciate the fact that you were speaking for truth back then, and I hope that you continue to do so for many years to come.
Things like personal like sexual preferences or a teenager quietly getting pregnant and performing an abortion, these are things you rather keep to yourself but are not (at least in liberal eyes) wrong.
If liberals don't think that a teenager quietly getting pregnant is wrong, why are they so keen to hand out condoms in schools?
I had people act like my wife and I were wrong to get pregnant, when we were married and in our twenties! Apparently you are supposed to wait until you are fifty now, or something.
It might have been best to clarify what species of adult the stem cells are harvested from, since in most news stories, "adult stem cells" typically has a connotation of adult human stem cells!
We are certainly agreed it is a mess!
I was just thinking that if one believes that in some circumstances it is acceptable to infringe liberty to save lives, that this would be one case where a person might advocate doing so.
For what it's worth, I don't believe in socializing the prosecution of crimes and the administration of justice, so in my utopia that we'll never see, abortions (which I do believe to be the taking of a human being's life) could theoretically go unprosecuted unless some heir to the victim wanted to bear the expense of doing so. But for a variety of other reasons (including increased access to birth control) I think they would be much less frequent.
No, I don't think it's okay to take away people's liberty to save lives.
I agree with you that the issue is socialism, and I don't like socialism.
Just on a whim, where do you come down on the abortion debate?
One person might be highly allergic to eggs and might not be able to get some particular vaccine as a result. However, if everybody around them isn't allergic to eggs wouldn't it be nice if they were vaccinated, thus greatly reducing the chance that any of them will get sick?
But "wouldn't it be nice" is not a good enough reason to take away people's liberty to do what they want with their own bodies.
That's why the urgent need, the thing that must happen first, is to learn how to slow the effects of aging on the brain. What good is life if you can't enjoy it? If the brain can be saved, then it might in fact be possible to develop technology to slow and reverse the effects of aging on the rest of the body, even to the point of growing replacement organs from one's own cells. And if it is possible to do this some day, it may even be possible to repair the damage done by certain types of freezing and/or vitrification, in some cases.