People are tortured daily in Cuba. Their religions are mocked.
Isn't the freedom to mock someone's religion supposed to be an example of personal freedom of speech and expression? Why would you compare that freedom to torture? Maybe you're saying that people should have the basic human right to never be offended. Correct me if I'm wrong.
There's a big difference between electronic ignition or electronic crank-position sensing and drive-by-wire nonsense. The former replace discrete mechanical components (points, distributor) with electronic equivalents, while the later adds nothing in terms of reliability and merely adds another point of failure.
A VW Lupo TDI will get over 75 MPG with normal operation, and is far less complex and expensive than any hybrid. If you live in the US, you can thank states like California for limiting the popularity of diesels here.
"God does not play dice" - Albert Einstein (obviously not a "scientific person")
It is generally accepted that Albert Einstein was using the word 'God' not to refer to the Judaeo-Christian god, but as a metaphor for the forces that drive the universe.
That's because the de facto standard language of the US is often the language that those people in third world countries are forced to learn to be productive.
Why the hell do you people want to convert everyone?
Atheists want to convert everyone because it's better to live in a world where everyone is scientific, rational, and correct than it is to live in a world where most people are deluded and ignorant.
Atheism is a religion and it has its own dogma, you know.
Atheism is a religion in exactly the same way that "bald" is a hair color.
Is it wrong to appreciate life in all its forms? Is it wrong to think that life is something special in the Universe? "God loves you" is just another way of saying that.
No, "God loves you" is a statement presuming the existence of a vaguely-defined concept ("God") with absolutely no evidence in support of it.
Science can answer the "How?" questions but not the "Why?" questions. Why are we here? Big bang, evolution, yada yada yada. That tells us how, but not why.
That's because there is no answer to the "Why?" question. That's a nonsense question to begin with, so only something equally nonsensical (like religious belief) could claim to provide an answer.
So when a single company with stated links to oil-producing countries comes up with the conclusion that we should continue to rely on oil, that's "seeking out and listening... in developing energy analysis", but when "everyone else" (and that does include pretty much everyone) comes to opposite conclusion, that's "doom-and-gloom... with only selective data"? That's some good, objective critical thinking skills you got there...
Over 90% of people on Earth believe in a supreme being of some kind, but that doesn't make them right. It's entirely possible that a small minority is more correct simply because they haven't gotten caught up in the frenzy of the opposite point of view.
Ok, Wikipedia is great and all, but it's possibly the last place you would want to go for information on this subject. Because anyone can edit it whether or not they're even qualified, it ends up full of editorial phrases like "only a small minority of climate scientists". That's not proper encyclopedic wording. It's written by someone with an agenda.
Keep your eyes closed or you might be in danger of learning something that might make you feel uncomfortable.
When I hear things like this, I can't help but entertain the possibility that some people are more concerned with feeling smug than they are with being correct.
The global average temperature has increased. Keep that head firmly wedged.
The global average temperature had increased at various points in the distant past, before humans ever existed. But you're real sure that it's our fault this time. That doesn't make any sense at all.
When was the last time the power went out for a week where you're at?
I can honestly say that I've never been without electric power for a week in my entire life. This achievement is mainly due to the fact that our species kicks so much ass.
The implied question is, "If that sort of climate change was possible ten thousand years ago, what makes you so sure that humans are the cause of current climate change?"
If someone seized my computers, I'd be kind of upset. I sort of use them every once in a while, you know?
You seem to forget that you do not have the right to never be inconvenienced. If someone commits a crime and is going to stand trial, then it's entirely possible that you will be pulled away from your job (for anywhere between a few days and many months) to act as part of a jury. The point is, we all have to suffer because of the mistakes of a few. This is understood.
The solution to this is to have a society that does not, on any level, tolerate wrongdoing.
If your government was oppressive enough to stop any criticism, what makes you think that the same government wouldn't also prohibit the use of any anonymizing software, and seize any hardware running it?
On the other hand, doing provocative, stupid things that are guaranteed to turn otherwise friendly or neutral people into our enemies is equally suicidal.
What sort of "provocative, stupid things" are you suggesting be avoided?
So they may have been the wrong man, but at least they got him good and dead, huh?. That's the important thing, right?
Um... in this case, yes. The police believed that this man was an immediate lethal threat to the citizens around him. That was unfortunately not the case, but accidents happen.
Good, lets try that again. I'm sure the mob will be happy to have their oldest revenue stream back. Good job, not only do you still have drunk drivers, you have mob violence as well! I love how none of you 'lets ban it' assholes ever respond to that part of the equation. Of course you have to say 'yes' here, no matter how you really feel.. because otherwise you'd rightly be called a hippocrate.
Maybe I neglected to mention this, but regular run-of-the-mill mob crime would still be illegal. If it was still happening, that would mean nothing other than that the laws were not being effectively enforced. So yes, the enforcement issue would need to be addressed, but I hadn't forgotten it.
Because the state needs all the sources of revenue it can get. In many places, speed limits are set artifically low.
Addressed in sister thread.
Most people hit nails with a hammer; some hit others in the head. Yet we don't ban the hammer.
So if it were up to you, what totally arbitrary line would you draw? Would you ban fully-automatic weapons? What about powerful explosives? Poison gas?
That fact that a very small number of people might harm someone else is not proper justification for taking away rights... sorry.
Well, I would say "unacceptably large" instead of "very small", but that part is entirely subjective. It appears that we simply do not agree at all on this point.
I've already addressed this. In summary, speed limits have nothing to do with safety; they are soley used to generate revenue for the state. You've been told to think that whatever limit is on the road is the safe limit; many cases, this is not the case, and the limit is actually dangerously low.
It's clear that the state expects some revenues to result from ticket fines -- maybe even by intentionally setting them lower than the mean safe driving speed -- but the notion that fines are the only reason for speed limits existing is a silly conspiracy theory. Speed limits were instituted long before speeding fines, and it's pretty obvious that a significant percentage of major accidents result from someone driving way too fast.
Not theorizing at all; have you done any research on prohibition at all? Of course, you never stop to consider that there is no possible way to implement the system that would ever work.
All I can say is that no one can be 100% certain that any future acts of prohibition will be as unsuccessful as the Eighteenth Amendment. The arguments against it are essentially: "There were tons of problems with Prohibition the first time around, so it's just not possible. Sorry. Don't even consider it." That's a junk argument.
Those that would take away freedom are always a threat.
Bullshit. What you reall mean is: "Those that would take away free are always a threat to me." Remember that not everyone thinks like you. There are many people who would gladly sacrifice freedom for security. (I expect that this fact brings Benjamin Franklin's famous quote to mind, but just because a historical figure said it doesn't make it true.)
Actually a fair number of philosophers have used logic to derive human rights. I'm sure there are people that don't agree, that think facism or communism or totalitarism are the 'right' way to go. That's the exteme end if your line of thinking. They can think that too.
Philosophy is an illegitimate profession, but I'll ignore that long enough to point out that these philosophers decided first that they were going to define human rights, and then attempt to weasel their way to that point by claiming the use of logical axioms.
So while you may be right, the fact is that THIS country is founded on the basis of human rights and freedoms. If you don't agree with that basic philosphy, you are free to move to another country that more fits your ideals.
I wouldn't be complaining so much if there was a better country somewhere. I'm happy here.
Slashdot Mirror
There's a big difference between electronic ignition or electronic crank-position sensing and drive-by-wire nonsense. The former replace discrete mechanical components (points, distributor) with electronic equivalents, while the later adds nothing in terms of reliability and merely adds another point of failure.
Drive-by-wire systems totally eat it.
That's because the de facto standard language of the US is often the language that those people in third world countries are forced to learn to be productive.
Atheism is a religion in exactly the same way that "bald" is a hair color.
No, "God loves you" is a statement presuming the existence of a vaguely-defined concept ("God") with absolutely no evidence in support of it.
That's because there is no answer to the "Why?" question. That's a nonsense question to begin with, so only something equally nonsensical (like religious belief) could claim to provide an answer.
When I hear things like this, I can't help but entertain the possibility that some people are more concerned with feeling smug than they are with being correct.
The implied question is, "If that sort of climate change was possible ten thousand years ago, what makes you so sure that humans are the cause of current climate change?"
Just because it's faster doesn't mean it's the best way.
The solution to this is to have a society that does not, on any level, tolerate wrongdoing.
If your government was oppressive enough to stop any criticism, what makes you think that the same government wouldn't also prohibit the use of any anonymizing software, and seize any hardware running it?
Addressed in sister thread.
So if it were up to you, what totally arbitrary line would you draw? Would you ban fully-automatic weapons? What about powerful explosives? Poison gas?
It's clear that the state expects some revenues to result from ticket fines -- maybe even by intentionally setting them lower than the mean safe driving speed -- but the notion that fines are the only reason for speed limits existing is a silly conspiracy theory. Speed limits were instituted long before speeding fines, and it's pretty obvious that a significant percentage of major accidents result from someone driving way too fast.
All I can say is that no one can be 100% certain that any future acts of prohibition will be as unsuccessful as the Eighteenth Amendment. The arguments against it are essentially: "There were tons of problems with Prohibition the first time around, so it's just not possible. Sorry. Don't even consider it." That's a junk argument.
Bullshit. What you reall mean is: "Those that would take away free are always a threat to me." Remember that not everyone thinks like you. There are many people who would gladly sacrifice freedom for security. (I expect that this fact brings Benjamin Franklin's famous quote to mind, but just because a historical figure said it doesn't make it true.)
Philosophy is an illegitimate profession, but I'll ignore that long enough to point out that these philosophers decided first that they were going to define human rights, and then attempt to weasel their way to that point by claiming the use of logical axioms.
I wouldn't be complaining so much if there was a better country somewhere. I'm happy here.
Mod parent up. It's comforting when people actually see that this is the case.