If you fill a tub full of water and then reduce the water coming out of the faucet to a drip, you can easily get a scientist to give you the wrong answer by bringing him in at this point and asking how long it took for the tub to fill up.
Erm, in a word: no.
If all you told him was that the tub was full and the tap is dripping, then yes, you might get a scientist to give a wrong conclusion.
But if you let the scientist examine the tub and the faucet, more likely than not, you'd get the right answer.
That's the problem with ID. It is an attack on science, not a theory unto itself. Science may have it wrong, so god must have done it.
The Korean, Vietnam, Gulf 1, Afganistan, and Gulf 2 wars were all fought without this declaration.
None of which makes it okay. There is a reason you have to declare war, and there is a reason that Congress has to do it. It has to do with the separation of powers, and so that the presidency doesn't become imperial. The excutive and the legislative have to come together and both declare a state of war, and it means a very specific thing regarding war powers. Presidential actions as the commander in chief are very purposefully limited to the standing army. However, in our historically recent military expansion, this has put the balance out of wack now that the president has a huge armed forces to command. The only barrier left in Congress control of the purse strings, which is a necessary control and the only thing standing in the way of one party getting into power and then deciding never to leave.
If you think we are not at war now, you must have been living in a cave for the last few year.
Oh, and I am also supporting the terrorists by knowing we're not at war? Double-plus good. If it so obvious that we're at war, get Congress to declare it.
We're not at war, and apologists like yourself are dangerous to the republic.
Pardon the question, but are you drunk, and did you accidentally reverse that?
SG-1 has certainly gone downhill in the last couple of seasons, but it has always been workmanlike, watchable SF. Outside of a few really good episodes, it really hasn't reached the heights that the new BSG has, but it always worth watching if it is on; it just isn't appointment TV.
Atlantis is, for lack of a better word, awful. The acting is wooden and unconvincing. The plots couldn't be any more generic. The characters are boilerplate. I watched a good sample of episodes on before BSG, but now I just turn the TV on at 10.
I see. So instead of stopping a stupid war engaged under false pretenses that is literally morgaging the country's economic future, you want to rob arts funding to pay for science funding?
Cliff, what color is the sky in your little neo-con world?
Although those of us who hated these movies may sometimes present our opinions as fact, it is a thousand times more polite than the standard Matrix fanboy tactic of saying that people who don't like the movies (i.e. don't share their opinion) are simply too stupid to understand the "intricasies" of the film, and therefore enjoy it.
Why is it that the endless Matrix apologists can't seem to fathom that there are those of us who do understand the "philosophy" behind the movies, got the oh-so-clever references that were crowbarred in at every opportunity, and still see the films for what they are: weak, derivative, poorly-plotted eye-candy with a dash of pretension?
This is about giving the government the right to censor the Internet.
Doesn't seem as nice when you look at it like that, is it? In fact, things that give the government new powers that are tied to no-brainer issues are exactly the ones that should be most closely scrutinized, because the government can get new power easily while having people like you shout down any opposition, no matter how right they are.
"Do you support pedophiles?"
"Do you support terrorists?"
"Do you support criminals?"
But once you give government a power, it is next to impossible to take it away from them.
And before you argue that the "slippery slope" argument is paranoid, remember that the PATRIOT Act was only going to be used against terrorists. (Or any number of relevant examples that can be brought out.)
The fact of the matter is that even if the British government censors the Internet, the supply is not going to magically go away because the demand is still the same. It will just find different channels.
(And don't talk about how I'm pro-pedophile. I believe that any governmnet should use the powers they have at hand to catch and punish peodophiles to the maximum extent of the law, especially those predators involved in the supply of child porn)
The original poster proferred the point that a small loss of freedom was acceptable to rid society of one evil. My point was that 1) this was invalid at its core (censoring the Internet would not result in any lasting removal of child pornography) and 2) that this kind of reasoning would lead to a relatively safe, completely unfree society.
And that's all you get. I'm not explaining it for you any more.
Well, we lost some rights, but now all children are safe. (Well, they aren't actually safe. We gave up free speech on the Internet so that pedophiles would have to find other ways to get kiddie porn, and the abuse rate hasn't gone down much.)
See, if you just kept on reading, you'd eventually find out that I'm not talking about some absurd right to child pornography. Go out and play now.
Seriously, I would rather have not one child be sexually abused for losing one of those "inaliable rights" everyone loves.
Which is exactly why you shouldn't be making those decisions. Well, we lost some rights, but now all children are safe. (Well, they aren't actually safe. We gave up free speech on the Internet so that pedophiles would have to find other ways to get kiddie porn, and the abuse rate hasn't gone down much.) How many more rights should we give up for the illusion of safety?
And what if we did give up all our rights and were made relatively safe? What's the point of being safe if you can't enjoy basic human rights?
"Think of the children!"
We'll do more to protect them by protecting their freedom.
On the other hand, I've got to agree with the Governator, if for different reasons. I'm not sure if this is within the power of the commission that did it, for whatever benefit. This kind of power creep is exactly the kind of thing citizens should oppose.
But then again, there is no way that bought and paid for state government would ever pass such consumer protection.
Slashdot Mirror
*cough*porn*cough*
If you fill a tub full of water and then reduce the water coming out of the faucet to a drip, you can easily get a scientist to give you the wrong answer by bringing him in at this point and asking how long it took for the tub to fill up.
Erm, in a word: no.
If all you told him was that the tub was full and the tap is dripping, then yes, you might get a scientist to give a wrong conclusion.
But if you let the scientist examine the tub and the faucet, more likely than not, you'd get the right answer.
That's the problem with ID. It is an attack on science, not a theory unto itself. Science may have it wrong, so god must have done it.
War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength. The US is a democracy.
The Korean, Vietnam, Gulf 1, Afganistan, and Gulf 2 wars were all fought without this declaration.
None of which makes it okay. There is a reason you have to declare war, and there is a reason that Congress has to do it. It has to do with the separation of powers, and so that the presidency doesn't become imperial. The excutive and the legislative have to come together and both declare a state of war, and it means a very specific thing regarding war powers. Presidential actions as the commander in chief are very purposefully limited to the standing army. However, in our historically recent military expansion, this has put the balance out of wack now that the president has a huge armed forces to command. The only barrier left in Congress control of the purse strings, which is a necessary control and the only thing standing in the way of one party getting into power and then deciding never to leave.
If you think we are not at war now, you must have been living in a cave for the last few year.
Oh, and I am also supporting the terrorists by knowing we're not at war? Double-plus good. If it so obvious that we're at war, get Congress to declare it.
We're not at war, and apologists like yourself are dangerous to the republic.
SG-Atlantis is good.
SG-1 sucks.
Pardon the question, but are you drunk, and did you accidentally reverse that?
SG-1 has certainly gone downhill in the last couple of seasons, but it has always been workmanlike, watchable SF. Outside of a few really good episodes, it really hasn't reached the heights that the new BSG has, but it always worth watching if it is on; it just isn't appointment TV.
Atlantis is, for lack of a better word, awful. The acting is wooden and unconvincing. The plots couldn't be any more generic. The characters are boilerplate. I watched a good sample of episodes on before BSG, but now I just turn the TV on at 10.
But if you already have an army ranger on site, why hack the system so it doesn't work? Why not just, you know, blow it up?
I see. So instead of stopping a stupid war engaged under false pretenses that is literally morgaging the country's economic future, you want to rob arts funding to pay for science funding?
Cliff, what color is the sky in your little neo-con world?
It is bad enough that the FBI is out to murder him, but now the Slashdot effect takes down his servers. You're all in on it, aren't you?
Not unless "for life" suddenly means "until the story is up for five minutes."
True for the most part, but Simpsons: Hit and Run was outstanding.
Can't believe I wasted my mod points on a story before this one.
Someone get the world's smallest violin immediately!
No one but the most deluded Southern apologists believe that this wasn't one of the key factors of the Civil War.
... after we get an AI to counter the Slashdot effect.
Inquiring minds want to know.
Well sure I know that, and you know that, but the headlines will read "Insecure Open Source Software Used By Hackers to Aid Telemarketers."
... until this is used in another "Open Source is evil" argument by MS, the government, the phone company, or all of the above in 5, 4, 3...
Although those of us who hated these movies may sometimes present our opinions as fact, it is a thousand times more polite than the standard Matrix fanboy tactic of saying that people who don't like the movies (i.e. don't share their opinion) are simply too stupid to understand the "intricasies" of the film, and therefore enjoy it.
Why is it that the endless Matrix apologists can't seem to fathom that there are those of us who do understand the "philosophy" behind the movies, got the oh-so-clever references that were crowbarred in at every opportunity, and still see the films for what they are: weak, derivative, poorly-plotted eye-candy with a dash of pretension?
Ignore all the hot button keywords for a minute.
This is about giving the government the right to censor the Internet.
Doesn't seem as nice when you look at it like that, is it? In fact, things that give the government new powers that are tied to no-brainer issues are exactly the ones that should be most closely scrutinized, because the government can get new power easily while having people like you shout down any opposition, no matter how right they are.
"Do you support pedophiles?"
"Do you support terrorists?"
"Do you support criminals?"
But once you give government a power, it is next to impossible to take it away from them.
And before you argue that the "slippery slope" argument is paranoid, remember that the PATRIOT Act was only going to be used against terrorists. (Or any number of relevant examples that can be brought out.)
The fact of the matter is that even if the British government censors the Internet, the supply is not going to magically go away because the demand is still the same. It will just find different channels.
(And don't talk about how I'm pro-pedophile. I believe that any governmnet should use the powers they have at hand to catch and punish peodophiles to the maximum extent of the law, especially those predators involved in the supply of child porn)
The original poster proferred the point that a small loss of freedom was acceptable to rid society of one evil. My point was that 1) this was invalid at its core (censoring the Internet would not result in any lasting removal of child pornography) and 2) that this kind of reasoning would lead to a relatively safe, completely unfree society.
And that's all you get. I'm not explaining it for you any more.
See, if you just kept on reading, you'd eventually find out that I'm not talking about some absurd right to child pornography. Go out and play now.
You come back as soon as your reading conprehension improves, okay?
Which is exactly why you shouldn't be making those decisions. Well, we lost some rights, but now all children are safe. (Well, they aren't actually safe. We gave up free speech on the Internet so that pedophiles would have to find other ways to get kiddie porn, and the abuse rate hasn't gone down much.) How many more rights should we give up for the illusion of safety?
And what if we did give up all our rights and were made relatively safe? What's the point of being safe if you can't enjoy basic human rights?
"Think of the children!"
We'll do more to protect them by protecting their freedom.
On the other hand, I've got to agree with the Governator, if for different reasons. I'm not sure if this is within the power of the commission that did it, for whatever benefit. This kind of power creep is exactly the kind of thing citizens should oppose.
But then again, there is no way that bought and paid for state government would ever pass such consumer protection.
Overall, I'd call it good with reservations.