it's illegal to tape a telephone conversation without both parties' consent. so your taped evidence wasn't admissible. the judge may have been flustered for a moment - pondering whether to bring charges against you!
There's a good chance that when he called, he got the message "This call may be recorded blah blah blah..." in which case, the caller has as much right to record the call as the company being called.
Of course it's just me speculating that this disclaimer was given, but it seems almost every company I call will say that at the beginning of the call.
Starvation problems aren't due to lack of food, they're do to lack of available food. Turning corn grown here into fuel burned here isn't going to stop the food from making it to Africa (it was never headed that way to begin with.)
So we're not talking about Africa here, but in Mexico, it can be more profitable to turn the corn into ethanol than into tortillas, and people are going hungry because of it.
ow is that ridiculously obsessed? Not doing it is completely negligent.
I'm not saying we shouldn't take any precautions, but with limited resources, we have to pick and choose what gets defended. Putting armed guards around every high-voltage tower might prevent terrorist attacks, but it wouldn't be economically feasible to do so.
So, sometimes you just have to take chances and hope for the best.
Do you wear a seatbelt? I guess not, since you're not worried about the difference between being hit head on by a drunk driver while wearing one and being hit while not wearing one, right?
Do you reinforce your car with steel, surround yourself in the drivers seat with fluffy pillows, wear a helmet and drive 5 mph wherever you go?
There's being careful, and there's being ridiculously obsessed over every little thing that could possibly go wrong.
Anyone "you" has one vote, wasting it on the lesser of two evils will ALWAYS result in evil getting elected.
Plenty of people voted 3rd party in 2000, and that's at least partially responsible for the 8-year national nightmare we've been living in.
I'd love to vote for a smaller party, and I do sometimes, but letting another Bush get elected because "voting for the lesser of two evils is wrong" isn't always an option for me... not anymore.
For President, only two of those parties have a chance in hell of being elected. But there have been -- and are, to the best of my knowledge -- people neither D nor R elected to the House, the Senate, and as Governers. In other words, the only office that's pretty much unquestionably going to a D or R is the White House.
It depends on where you live, and depends on the race.
Thanks to polling and surveys, we can get a pretty good idea of where the candidates stand, if it's going to be a close race, etc.
If it's going to be a close race, generally I'll vote against the candidate I want to lose. If one of the two majors is running away with the race, and my one little vote won't swing the election in one way or the other, I'll go ahead and vote for a third party.
So its bad that the libertarians want you to have more of the money you earn. Its bad that they believe that you should be responsible for yourself, not some monolithic entity that takes from some to give to others?
A lot of people really enjoy their favorite government programs, and someone has to pay for them.
Personally, I like some of what the libertarians say (shrink govt, lower taxes, legalize drugs, guns for everyone, etc.) but I think they put too much faith in their brand of free-market capitalism. I don't think their ideas, once implemented, will transform society into a wondrous capitalist utopia.
Plus, for a lot of them, personal freedom doesn't extend to woman's right to an abortion.
It might interest you to know that there are more than 70 political parties in the United States.
And exactly two of them have a chance in hell of actually being elected. Voting against the worst-possible-outcome (i.e. a Republican being elected) isn't ideal, but it's the reality of American electoral politics for a lot of people.
you need to appreciate that. it's as hard and cold a truth about reality as any physical law you care to recite. believing things into existence is true as surely as any other fundamental truth of your reality: gravity, sunlight, the oceans... the human desire, willpower, and ability to shape his world is no small thing. reflect on that, and appreciate it
This is complete nonsense. Believing things into existence doesn't happen. This is a fundamental flaw in your argument, and all further arguments based on this fact are based on a false premise, and therefore invalid.
you see that is the difference between Catholicism and other organized religion who's sole goal is to control people and the real teachings of a certain religion.
Could you clarify what you mean by this? I'm not sure how Catholicism is different from any other religion, based on your example.
Why is it that atheists know theology better then the worshipers?
I think learning enough about theology is probably enough to turn anyone into an atheist. Read enough holy books, and you'll realize they're lovely fictional works that do contain some generally good lessons, but couldn't possibly be the work of a superhuman being.
A lawful combatant is defined as one that basically, represents a state.
Exactly, because that is how the third Geneva Convention defines them.
So wouldn't that definition of a lawful combatant include Taliban soldiers, if they were representing the defacto government of Afghanistan? I think they didn't have official US recognition as the legitimate government, but is that the line between lawful and unlawful combatants?
Well pardon me if I find it hard to believe that giving human rights to a chimp living in a lab, would improve the ecosystem.
My response was about a species as a whole, not an individual animal in a lab. In my response I never mentioned the concept of granting human rights to animals.
I've brought up in another post in this thread that I think the primary right all life on earth has is the right to be left alone, unless it's time to be food or otherwise necessary for the survival of another. The primary responsibility that goes along with that is to only take what one needs to survive.
I don't have a problem with animals being food, and I don't have a problem with necessary medical research. If a chimp (or other animal) needs to be experimented on for the survival of humans, well then, it sucks for that chimp, but it's our right as living beings to ensure our survival. Similarly, if a human is walking through the jungle and some chimps kill and eat him, it sucks for that human, but it's the chimps' right to do that to ensure their survival.
What we don't have the right to do is walk into the jungle and slaughter all the chimps we see because they might pose a risk.
I think in the name of general decency, because we are able to recognize suffering in humans and other animals, we should set as our goal to minimize that suffering.
Further more, fine, we give all animals human rights. Will they also follow their obligations? Will they pay taxes, wil they be arrested for walking nude in public or something?
I don't agree with the idea that rights are something we have to earn in exchange for following certain rules that have been imposed on us, which is something people much smarter than us have been arguing about for hundreds of years, so I don't think we'll gain much on that topic here today:)
In any case, I'm not arguing for full human rights to be granted to chimps or any other animals- merely that we recognize their right to be left alone (in most cases.) This is a right we're all born with, so it's rather presumptuous to assume that we have the authority to grant this right. Besides, the concept of asking animals to pay us back for that right by following certain obligations is rather silly.
On Penn & Teller's Bullshiat, a show with many many many subtle flaws despite it's many many many good parts, they once had a little bit in the PeTA piece about how if animals have rights, then therefore they should have responsibilities
Well, that's a rather meaningless (and human-centric) argument, actually. Unless they're forced to live in a human's world, animals have no need for the human concept of rights/responsibilities.
What responsibilities could an animal possibly have, if left alone in the wild? What rights would they need to be granted?
The fundamental responsibility that all animals, including humans, have is to adhere to this principle: take/eat/use what you need to survive, and leave the rest alone. Most animals seem to do a decent job at this- humans, not so much.
They also have the same basic rights as humans: the right to be left alone (unless it's their turn to be food for someone else.)
In term of genetic phylogeny research has shown (by counting the number of mutation 'distance' between species to assert divergeance and subsequently putting them in a tree) that the chimp is our direct ancestror.
If you have any links to this research, I'd like to see it.
My understanding (and someone else who already responded has said this) was that chimps and humans share a common ancestor.
No one who ever had a clue would doubt animals are sentient. It's more about being responsible to save your own species before saving someone else's.
Part of trying to save other species *is* a responsibility to save our own. We're all ultimately dependent on a functioning ecosystem. Maybe losing a few species here and there isn't going to affect us greatly, but it's rather short-sighted to assume that we can wipe out any species whose existence is inconvenient for humans, and expect it to not have any affect on our long-term survival.
Basically Science Fiction is a speculation on what life will be like in the future, I don't know how you could say Star Wars wasn't science fiction. You've got advanced civilizations with huge futuristic cities and clone warriors and a bunch of other stuff.
Star Wars wasn't the future! It took place long ago, in a galaxy far, far away.
Are you willing to believe that perhaps they really are just trying to reduce the salaries of sales staff? And why shouldn't they, considering that it's a low-skill low-responsibility job?
Sure, that is probably what they're trying to do, and they're free to run their business any way they want.
I don't generally shop at Circuit City, but from what I hear a major complaint that many people have is that most of the sales staff have no idea what they hell they're talking about. If you're trying to sell electronic equipment, it helps to know what it is that you're selling.
Firing the highest paid (and I think it's probably safe to assume that the highest paid sales staff are either the most knowledgeable and/or been working at the store the longest) and replacing them with some minimum-wage 16-year-old kids isn't exactly going to set their sales on fire.
Because we evolved (or were created) to be a moral species, our only real choice for saving the planet and ourselves at the same time is to increase farmer productivity. So far we have been doing a pretty good job, since the current benefits are staggering.
I'm not sure that it's really any more moral to allow the human population to grow exponentially, far beyond any reasonable carrying capacity of the Earth, and set us all up for global catastrophic collapse.
(and just because Malthus and others have predicted collapse in the past and have been wrong about the time-frame doesn't mean the day isn't coming where we do reach the limits of how much food can be produced, how much fuel we can burn, how much water we can drink, etc.)
The purpose of public public education is to teach children to show up on time, do what their told while they're there, if they don't finish their work take it home with them.
Don't forget to delay workers from entering the workplace for a few years.
Slashdot Mirror
it's illegal to tape a telephone conversation without both parties' consent. so your taped evidence wasn't admissible. the judge may have been flustered for a moment - pondering whether to bring charges against you!
There's a good chance that when he called, he got the message "This call may be recorded blah blah blah..."
in which case, the caller has as much right to record the call as the company being called.
Of course it's just me speculating that this disclaimer was given, but it seems almost every company I call will say that at the beginning of the call.
Starvation problems aren't due to lack of food, they're do to lack of available food. Turning corn grown here into fuel burned here isn't going to stop the food from making it to Africa (it was never headed that way to begin with.)
Most of the time I'd agree with you, but check out this article:
There is almost universal consensus in Mexico that higher demand for ethanol is at the root of price increases for corn and tortillas.
So we're not talking about Africa here, but in Mexico, it can be more profitable to turn the corn into ethanol than into tortillas, and people are going hungry because of it.
If you can't stay up all night hacking and eating cold pizza, why would I want to hire you - especially fresh out of school??
If you expect me to stay up all night hacking and eating cold pizza, why would I want to work for you?
ow is that ridiculously obsessed? Not doing it is completely negligent.
I'm not saying we shouldn't take any precautions, but with limited resources, we have to pick and choose what gets defended. Putting armed guards around every high-voltage tower might prevent terrorist attacks, but it wouldn't be economically feasible to do so.
So, sometimes you just have to take chances and hope for the best.
Do you wear a seatbelt? I guess not, since you're not worried about the difference between being hit head on by a drunk driver while wearing one and being hit while not wearing one, right?
Do you reinforce your car with steel, surround yourself in the drivers seat with fluffy pillows, wear a helmet and drive 5 mph wherever you go?
There's being careful, and there's being ridiculously obsessed over every little thing that could possibly go wrong.
Anyone "you" has one vote, wasting it on the lesser of two evils will ALWAYS result in evil getting elected.
Plenty of people voted 3rd party in 2000, and that's at least partially responsible for the 8-year national nightmare we've been living in.
I'd love to vote for a smaller party, and I do sometimes, but letting another Bush get elected because "voting for the lesser of two evils is wrong" isn't always an option for me... not anymore.
For President, only two of those parties have a chance in hell of being elected. But there have been -- and are, to the best of my knowledge -- people neither D nor R elected to the House, the Senate, and as Governers. In other words, the only office that's pretty much unquestionably going to a D or R is the White House.
It depends on where you live, and depends on the race.
Thanks to polling and surveys, we can get a pretty good idea of where the candidates stand, if it's going to be a close race, etc.
If it's going to be a close race, generally I'll vote against the candidate I want to lose.
If one of the two majors is running away with the race, and my one little vote won't swing the election in one way or the other, I'll go ahead and vote for a third party.
So its bad that the libertarians want you to have more of the money you earn. Its bad that they believe that you should be responsible for yourself, not some monolithic entity that takes from some to give to others?
A lot of people really enjoy their favorite government programs, and someone has to pay for them.
Personally, I like some of what the libertarians say (shrink govt, lower taxes, legalize drugs, guns for everyone, etc.) but I think they put too much faith in their brand of free-market capitalism. I don't think their ideas, once implemented, will transform society into a wondrous capitalist utopia.
Plus, for a lot of them, personal freedom doesn't extend to woman's right to an abortion.
Seriously, it's not that hard - Lincoln was a Republican.
Yeah, 150 years ago.
What have they done for us lately?
It might interest you to know that there are more than 70 political parties in the United States.
And exactly two of them have a chance in hell of actually being elected.
Voting against the worst-possible-outcome (i.e. a Republican being elected) isn't ideal, but it's the reality of American electoral politics for a lot of people.
too bad 90% of americans are baying sheep that are to cowardly to vote for a 3rd party.
Nothing says "vote for us" like insulting 90% of the voting population!
This sucks, but what are we going to do? Vote Republican?
No thanks.
you need to appreciate that. it's as hard and cold a truth about reality as any physical law you care to recite. believing things into existence is true as surely as any other fundamental truth of your reality: gravity, sunlight, the oceans... the human desire, willpower, and ability to shape his world is no small thing. reflect on that, and appreciate it
This is complete nonsense. Believing things into existence doesn't happen.
This is a fundamental flaw in your argument, and all further arguments based on this fact are based on a false premise, and therefore invalid.
you see that is the difference between Catholicism and other organized religion who's sole goal is to control people and the real teachings of a certain religion.
Could you clarify what you mean by this? I'm not sure how Catholicism is different from any other religion, based on your example.
Why is it that atheists know theology better then the worshipers?
I think learning enough about theology is probably enough to turn anyone into an atheist.
Read enough holy books, and you'll realize they're lovely fictional works that do contain some generally good lessons, but couldn't possibly be the work of a superhuman being.
A lawful combatant is defined as one that basically, represents a state.
Exactly, because that is how the third Geneva Convention defines them.
So wouldn't that definition of a lawful combatant include Taliban soldiers,
if they were representing the defacto government of Afghanistan?
I think they didn't have official US recognition as the legitimate government,
but is that the line between lawful and unlawful combatants?
Well pardon me if I find it hard to believe that giving human rights to a chimp living in a lab, would improve the ecosystem.
:)
My response was about a species as a whole, not an individual animal in a lab.
In my response I never mentioned the concept of granting human rights to animals.
I've brought up in another post in this thread that I think the primary right all life on earth has is the right to be left alone, unless it's time to be food or otherwise necessary for the survival of another.
The primary responsibility that goes along with that is to only take what one needs to survive.
I don't have a problem with animals being food, and I don't have a problem with necessary medical research. If a chimp (or other animal) needs to be experimented on for the survival of humans, well then, it sucks for that chimp, but it's our right as living beings to ensure our survival. Similarly, if a human is walking through the jungle and some chimps kill and eat him, it sucks for that human, but it's the chimps' right to do that to ensure their survival.
What we don't have the right to do is walk into the jungle and slaughter all the chimps we see because they might pose a risk.
I think in the name of general decency, because we are able to recognize suffering in humans and other animals, we should set as our goal to minimize that suffering.
Further more, fine, we give all animals human rights. Will they also follow their obligations? Will they pay taxes, wil they be arrested for walking nude in public or something?
I don't agree with the idea that rights are something we have to earn in exchange for following certain rules that have been imposed on us, which is something people much smarter than us have been arguing about for hundreds of years, so I don't think we'll gain much on that topic here today
In any case, I'm not arguing for full human rights to be granted to chimps or any other animals- merely that we recognize their right to be left alone (in most cases.) This is a right we're all born with, so it's rather presumptuous to assume that we have the authority to grant this right.
Besides, the concept of asking animals to pay us back for that right by following certain obligations is rather silly.
On Penn & Teller's Bullshiat, a show with many many many subtle flaws despite it's many many many good parts, they once had a little bit in the PeTA piece about how if animals have rights, then therefore they should have responsibilities
Well, that's a rather meaningless (and human-centric) argument, actually.
Unless they're forced to live in a human's world, animals have no need for the human concept of rights/responsibilities.
What responsibilities could an animal possibly have, if left alone in the wild?
What rights would they need to be granted?
The fundamental responsibility that all animals, including humans, have is to adhere to
this principle: take/eat/use what you need to survive, and leave the rest alone.
Most animals seem to do a decent job at this- humans, not so much.
They also have the same basic rights as humans: the right to be left alone (unless it's their turn to be food for someone else.)
In term of genetic phylogeny research has shown (by counting the number of mutation 'distance' between species to assert divergeance and subsequently putting them in a tree) that the chimp is our direct ancestror.
If you have any links to this research, I'd like to see it.
My understanding (and someone else who already responded has said this) was that chimps and humans share a common ancestor.
No one who ever had a clue would doubt animals are sentient. It's more about being responsible to save your own species before saving someone else's.
Part of trying to save other species *is* a responsibility to save our own.
We're all ultimately dependent on a functioning ecosystem. Maybe losing a few species
here and there isn't going to affect us greatly, but it's rather short-sighted to
assume that we can wipe out any species whose existence is inconvenient for humans,
and expect it to not have any affect on our long-term survival.
Basically Science Fiction is a speculation on what life will be like in the future, I don't know how you could say Star Wars wasn't science fiction. You've got advanced civilizations with huge futuristic cities and clone warriors and a bunch of other stuff.
Star Wars wasn't the future!
It took place long ago, in a galaxy far, far away.
Are you willing to believe that perhaps they really are just trying to reduce the salaries of sales staff? And why shouldn't they, considering that it's a low-skill low-responsibility job?
Sure, that is probably what they're trying to do, and they're free to run their business any way they want.
I don't generally shop at Circuit City, but from what I hear a major complaint that many people have is that most of the sales staff have no idea what they hell they're talking about. If you're trying to sell electronic equipment, it helps to know what it is that you're selling.
Firing the highest paid (and I think it's probably safe to assume that the highest paid sales staff are either the most knowledgeable and/or been working at the store the longest) and replacing them with some minimum-wage 16-year-old kids isn't exactly going to set their sales on fire.
Because we evolved (or were created) to be a moral species, our only real choice for saving the planet and ourselves at the same time is to increase farmer productivity. So far we have been doing a pretty good
job, since the current benefits are staggering.
I'm not sure that it's really any more moral to allow the human population to grow exponentially, far beyond any reasonable carrying capacity of the Earth, and set us all up for global catastrophic collapse.
(and just because Malthus and others have predicted collapse in the past and have been wrong about the time-frame doesn't mean the day isn't coming where we do reach the limits of how much food can be produced, how much fuel we can burn, how much water we can drink, etc.)
Since when is uniformly of high quality somehow uniformly of low quality, your lie becomes the truth of exclusive for the minority excellence.
Forgive me if English isn't your first language, but what does this mean? I can't parse that sentence.
The purpose of public public education is to teach children to show up on time, do what their told while they're there, if they don't finish their work take it home with them.
Don't forget to delay workers from entering the workplace for a few years.