I assume by spotlights you mean the high beams? There is nothing wrong with driving with your high beams on during a sunny afternoon, it makes you more visible. I'm much more concerned about people driving in foul weather or at night with no lights on at all.... Catching those boneheads would be a good use of a camera, but a simpler solution is just setting cars up like motorcycles: when your ignition is on, your headlights and taillights automatically come on.
I would favor a national drivers license if they also made traffic laws identical across the land. A single card that was your drivers license, SS card, nationwide gun permit (with appropriate safety classes), and perhaps ATM card would be handy IF it could not be stolen or forged. Sorry, i know I'm in the minority, but I think this state to state stuff is a load of crap. Let's standardize and be done with it.
"Actually I recommend you buy the books, totally worth it. Audio books are worse than cell phones while driving.. which is pretty bad." Actually, I have all 5 books of the trilogy on tape, read by Douglas himself! I generally hate books on tape, but I actually prefer this version over the book proper. Word for word it is the same, but Douglas Adams really did an excellent job reciting it. Too bad they can never do it for the sixth book....
The problem that smokers and mobile phone users both have is simply a lack of courtesy. I don't want to smell your smoke, and I'm really sure you don't want to hear a 45 second annoying-ass cellphone ring. So I ask the courtesy of you not smoking near me, and I make sure my phone is on vibrate (not ring) and I shut it off when I go to the movies...:) A little courtesy goes a long way.
Actually, no. IIRC, all a jammer would need to do is disrupt the "handshake" signal between the tower and the cell phone. This is separate from the data stream. So it would not take much power to disrupt, and the phone would no longer know the tower is there to increase it's output. At least, that's how they worked a couple years ago when I researched jammers.:)
LOL Well, if you wait long enough, the dilemma does go away on its own! Either side has the possibility for error, these are beliefs we are discussing. If there were no chance for error, they'd be facts.:-) But, sometimes you gotta follow your belief. I have to decide to be atheist, Hindu, Christian, pagan... And there is NO WAY to prove conclusively which one is right, since they are all belief structures. You never know the right way until the end (if then!)..
I'm actually glad you walked down this path, in a way. ee, I don't think that all homo sapiens count as human beings. I can think of quite a few pieces of slime that certainly LOOK like people, but need to be summarily executed. In short, I don't think that simply having the genetics makes you human. I think that your actions and experiences make you human. And I don't think you are human until you've had those experiences. I can slice my hand open and spill MILLIONS of living cells with human DNA on the ground, are you going to mourn for the millions of "intrinsic moral values" that I just doomed to die? I didn't think so...
Your examples all include two parties who are post birth, and are generally accepted by everyone to be human beings. You'll need to choose examples that are relevant to actually _prove_ your point with them, although you did get your point across. So, now I'll come up with some examples for my side of the story. Pardon my formatting skills, they are nonexistent.:-) 1)Bob BELIEVES that it is wrong to eat the flesh of a cow, and you happen to like steak. Bob throws you in jail over a sirloin. 2)Charles BELIEVES that you are only allowed to have one child in your family. You have a second child on accident. Charles has already passed a law. You are fined and thrown in jail. 3)Amoso and his friends BELIEVE that anyone who does not worship Halla is an infidel and should be killed. They engage in a war to make sure that everyone conforms to their belief in Halla.
My point is, you will always find a religion (Hindu), government (China?), or a wacko (you know who) who can have some pretty odd rules and might even try to force some BELIEFS on you. Notice that the first two examples are sizable groups, at least as large as the pro-life faction in the US. Does that make their views binding to you?
You have an interesting point, but I'd like to expand on it. Your example of forcing beliefs on an embryo would be a good one, arguing that someone is forcing a belief on someone else in either case. The difference is that (almost) everyone acknowledges a post birth embryo to be human, but it is a split before birth. So on one hand you have the inflicting of a belief on a being that 100% of the people believe is human, and on the other side there is a large uncertainty about the humanity recieving the belief. I know I didn't say this very well, I'm not sure how to type it any clearer though. Sorry...
Unfortunately, it is mutual. The two sides will never see eye to eye, but it is always a plus to be able to talk about it while being civil. Thank you for that.:-) But your point simply shifted the particular belief being contested. The pro-choicers hold the belief that the object in question is not a human until the third trimester or birth, which is different from the stance the pro-lifers take. So it is once again a case of one side trying to force a belief on the other side.
The main advantage IDE RAID has is that you can get RAID data security for a lot fewer dollars per gig of storage. I'm using a 3Ware card to run 8 hard disks mirrored for a total of 640GIG of secure data storage on my home LAN. It is acessed by one or two people at a time, mostly for movies and MP3's, so the performance isn't nearly as big an issue as the capacity for the money is.
"You may not agree with that belief, and you have every right to disagree with it, but you should respect the fact that some conservatives actually have reasons for our positions" And in the same vein, you should respect the beliefs of the people who are in favor of stem cell research. Unfortunately, YOUR side is the one who is trying to force your opinion on everyone else. I find your concept of "respect" as a one way street to be the root of the entire problem. After all, noone is forcing YOU to participate, right? What gives you the right to force others NOT to participate? Nothing does.:-)
"and then force those beliefs on others" This is the distinction. Only one group in this debate wants to tell the other group what to do. The other side just wants to follow their OWN beliefs.
I want to add that I don't target shoot to "prepare" for any catastrophe. I just like to target shoot, it takes skill. Compare it to golf, darts, lawn jarts, any other skill based hobby. My hobby has never hurt anyone, should I be forbidden to do it?
Well, the reason you haven't seen a militia, oh wise one, is because there has been no reason for one yet. When citizens need to band together to defend themselves from (insert enemy here) THEN you will see a militia. If the citizens were not armed, there would BE no militia. As far as where is the training, I have spent a lot of time target shooting- and my aim and familiarity with the firearm has improved over that time. If I had never had the chance to practice on my own, I'd probably be pretty worthless (moreso than I am anyway) if I NEEDED to shoot accurately. I'd say that qualifies as training, wouldn't you? It is certainly more training than I'd get without access to my firearm for practice. And target shooting like that is the most common use for firearms by legitimate owners. Perhaps you are against people shooting holes in paper?
"The technique should feed people's thirst for smaller, cheaper gadgets. Conventional glass LCDs now make up an increasing part of a laptop's weight - plastic versions could change that"... I think I'd rather have a heavier, clearer display than a lighter but fuzzy one. This technology will have to be better than conventional LCD's before it is adopted in a laptop.
Did you ever look up the definition of militia? Let me help you out, from dictionary.com:
militia Pronunciation Key (m-lsh)
n.
1)An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
2)A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
3)The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.
A militia is made up ENTIRELY of citizens (Joe Sixpacks), and historically they possess their own weapons. Look at #2 specifically: "not part of a regular army". What does "well-regulated" mean? It means that they cannot go rogue or misbehave, since a militia that kills and loots is nothing but a mob. It limits the actions a militia may take, it does not limit their right to have firearms. That right is there for a few reasons: the militia will have no proficiency if they can only practice with issued weapons that they may or may not get, it ensures that weapons will be available and in good working order in time of need, and it makes it nearly impossible to catch the citizens "with their pants down", since they do not need to go to an armory to arm themselves. The line was put in there for a reason, numbnuts, too bad you can't use a dictionary to find out what the reason was. It's a shame how dumb most ANTIgun nuts are.
This is true, but once you alter a contract the otehr party needs to reapprove it. We could make a contract for me to buy your house for market value, and you could sign it. But if I alter the contract after that point so I only pay you $1, is that binding? No, it is not. Once the signed contract was altered, it has to be reapproved by the party who signed it. Same thing goes for EULAs, because if you alter the contract then the original party needs to sign off again, which they don't have the opportunity to do. So you are using contract only software without permission in the form of a contract. You're pirating instead of violating a contract.... No solution there. IANAL, this is just logic, but we both know logic and law are not the same thing..:-) Your stance could be correct on the books.
But I would take the stance that we are not talking about a photocopy here, we are talking about the original. You are still installing the same piece of software and "signing the same piece of paper", so to speak. And that masking tape can be pulled off after it is signed to reveal the words underneath!:-) Much as I hate EULAs I don't think that this line of circumvention will work.
But closing your eyes instead of reading the EULA doesn't mean you weren't presented with it. You were still presented with it, you just chose not to read it by obscuring it.
Actually, think about the implications of people hooking themselves up like this. "I have a box with a button on it, and when I press the button I am so happy... In fact, I don't care that I'm homeless in an alley laying in my own feces because I lost my job/family/house because I couldn't stop pushing the button..." Bums would be begging for new batteries instead of booze money.
That was my thought too. This is like covering the words on a paper contract with masking tape, so that you cannot read it before you sign it. Signing it (hitting I Accept) still makes the contract binding, even if you intentionally couldn't see the words. You can lead a man to a EULA, but you can't make him read it...
Slashdot Mirror
I assume by spotlights you mean the high beams? There is nothing wrong with driving with your high beams on during a sunny afternoon, it makes you more visible. I'm much more concerned about people driving in foul weather or at night with no lights on at all.... Catching those boneheads would be a good use of a camera, but a simpler solution is just setting cars up like motorcycles: when your ignition is on, your headlights and taillights automatically come on.
How is that laughable? 10% of 3000 kcalories every 24 hours is a lot of energy, bud. Especially if you get that much 6 billion times a day.
I would favor a national drivers license if they also made traffic laws identical across the land. A single card that was your drivers license, SS card, nationwide gun permit (with appropriate safety classes), and perhaps ATM card would be handy IF it could not be stolen or forged. Sorry, i know I'm in the minority, but I think this state to state stuff is a load of crap. Let's standardize and be done with it.
"Actually I recommend you buy the books, totally worth it. Audio books are worse than cell phones while driving.. which is pretty bad." Actually, I have all 5 books of the trilogy on tape, read by Douglas himself! I generally hate books on tape, but I actually prefer this version over the book proper. Word for word it is the same, but Douglas Adams really did an excellent job reciting it. Too bad they can never do it for the sixth book....
The U.S. in looking into making jammers legal for private facilities like theaters and restaurants. At least, they were last year...
The problem that smokers and mobile phone users both have is simply a lack of courtesy. I don't want to smell your smoke, and I'm really sure you don't want to hear a 45 second annoying-ass cellphone ring. So I ask the courtesy of you not smoking near me, and I make sure my phone is on vibrate (not ring) and I shut it off when I go to the movies... :) A little courtesy goes a long way.
Actually, no. IIRC, all a jammer would need to do is disrupt the "handshake" signal between the tower and the cell phone. This is separate from the data stream. So it would not take much power to disrupt, and the phone would no longer know the tower is there to increase it's output. At least, that's how they worked a couple years ago when I researched jammers. :)
LOL Well, if you wait long enough, the dilemma does go away on its own! Either side has the possibility for error, these are beliefs we are discussing. If there were no chance for error, they'd be facts. :-) But, sometimes you gotta follow your belief. I have to decide to be atheist, Hindu, Christian, pagan... And there is NO WAY to prove conclusively which one is right, since they are all belief structures. You never know the right way until the end (if then!)..
I'm actually glad you walked down this path, in a way. ee, I don't think that all homo sapiens count as human beings. I can think of quite a few pieces of slime that certainly LOOK like people, but need to be summarily executed. In short, I don't think that simply having the genetics makes you human. I think that your actions and experiences make you human. And I don't think you are human until you've had those experiences. I can slice my hand open and spill MILLIONS of living cells with human DNA on the ground, are you going to mourn for the millions of "intrinsic moral values" that I just doomed to die? I didn't think so...
Your examples all include two parties who are post birth, and are generally accepted by everyone to be human beings. You'll need to choose examples that are relevant to actually _prove_ your point with them, although you did get your point across. So, now I'll come up with some examples for my side of the story. Pardon my formatting skills, they are nonexistent. :-) 1)Bob BELIEVES that it is wrong to eat the flesh of a cow, and you happen to like steak. Bob throws you in jail over a sirloin. 2)Charles BELIEVES that you are only allowed to have one child in your family. You have a second child on accident. Charles has already passed a law. You are fined and thrown in jail. 3)Amoso and his friends BELIEVE that anyone who does not worship Halla is an infidel and should be killed. They engage in a war to make sure that everyone conforms to their belief in Halla.
My point is, you will always find a religion (Hindu), government (China?), or a wacko (you know who) who can have some pretty odd rules and might even try to force some BELIEFS on you. Notice that the first two examples are sizable groups, at least as large as the pro-life faction in the US. Does that make their views binding to you?
You have an interesting point, but I'd like to expand on it. Your example of forcing beliefs on an embryo would be a good one, arguing that someone is forcing a belief on someone else in either case. The difference is that (almost) everyone acknowledges a post birth embryo to be human, but it is a split before birth. So on one hand you have the inflicting of a belief on a being that 100% of the people believe is human, and on the other side there is a large uncertainty about the humanity recieving the belief. I know I didn't say this very well, I'm not sure how to type it any clearer though. Sorry...
Unfortunately, it is mutual. The two sides will never see eye to eye, but it is always a plus to be able to talk about it while being civil. Thank you for that. :-) But your point simply shifted the particular belief being contested. The pro-choicers hold the belief that the object in question is not a human until the third trimester or birth, which is different from the stance the pro-lifers take. So it is once again a case of one side trying to force a belief on the other side.
The main advantage IDE RAID has is that you can get RAID data security for a lot fewer dollars per gig of storage. I'm using a 3Ware card to run 8 hard disks mirrored for a total of 640GIG of secure data storage on my home LAN. It is acessed by one or two people at a time, mostly for movies and MP3's, so the performance isn't nearly as big an issue as the capacity for the money is.
After the previous comment about being skinny, I could have SWORN that your name was "fat pill" when I skimmed down. I had to do a doubletake...
"You may not agree with that belief, and you have every right to disagree with it, but you should respect the fact that some conservatives actually have reasons for our positions" And in the same vein, you should respect the beliefs of the people who are in favor of stem cell research. Unfortunately, YOUR side is the one who is trying to force your opinion on everyone else. I find your concept of "respect" as a one way street to be the root of the entire problem. After all, noone is forcing YOU to participate, right? What gives you the right to force others NOT to participate? Nothing does. :-)
"and then force those beliefs on others" This is the distinction. Only one group in this debate wants to tell the other group what to do. The other side just wants to follow their OWN beliefs.
I want to add that I don't target shoot to "prepare" for any catastrophe. I just like to target shoot, it takes skill. Compare it to golf, darts, lawn jarts, any other skill based hobby. My hobby has never hurt anyone, should I be forbidden to do it?
Well, the reason you haven't seen a militia, oh wise one, is because there has been no reason for one yet. When citizens need to band together to defend themselves from (insert enemy here) THEN you will see a militia. If the citizens were not armed, there would BE no militia. As far as where is the training, I have spent a lot of time target shooting- and my aim and familiarity with the firearm has improved over that time. If I had never had the chance to practice on my own, I'd probably be pretty worthless (moreso than I am anyway) if I NEEDED to shoot accurately. I'd say that qualifies as training, wouldn't you? It is certainly more training than I'd get without access to my firearm for practice. And target shooting like that is the most common use for firearms by legitimate owners. Perhaps you are against people shooting holes in paper?
"The technique should feed people's thirst for smaller, cheaper gadgets. Conventional glass LCDs now make up an increasing part of a laptop's weight - plastic versions could change that"... I think I'd rather have a heavier, clearer display than a lighter but fuzzy one. This technology will have to be better than conventional LCD's before it is adopted in a laptop.
Did you ever look up the definition of militia? Let me help you out, from dictionary.com: militia Pronunciation Key (m-lsh) n. 1)An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers. 2)A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency. 3)The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service. A militia is made up ENTIRELY of citizens (Joe Sixpacks), and historically they possess their own weapons. Look at #2 specifically: "not part of a regular army". What does "well-regulated" mean? It means that they cannot go rogue or misbehave, since a militia that kills and loots is nothing but a mob. It limits the actions a militia may take, it does not limit their right to have firearms. That right is there for a few reasons: the militia will have no proficiency if they can only practice with issued weapons that they may or may not get, it ensures that weapons will be available and in good working order in time of need, and it makes it nearly impossible to catch the citizens "with their pants down", since they do not need to go to an armory to arm themselves. The line was put in there for a reason, numbnuts, too bad you can't use a dictionary to find out what the reason was. It's a shame how dumb most ANTIgun nuts are.
This is true, but once you alter a contract the otehr party needs to reapprove it. We could make a contract for me to buy your house for market value, and you could sign it. But if I alter the contract after that point so I only pay you $1, is that binding? No, it is not. Once the signed contract was altered, it has to be reapproved by the party who signed it. Same thing goes for EULAs, because if you alter the contract then the original party needs to sign off again, which they don't have the opportunity to do. So you are using contract only software without permission in the form of a contract. You're pirating instead of violating a contract.... No solution there. IANAL, this is just logic, but we both know logic and law are not the same thing.. :-) Your stance could be correct on the books.
But I would take the stance that we are not talking about a photocopy here, we are talking about the original. You are still installing the same piece of software and "signing the same piece of paper", so to speak. And that masking tape can be pulled off after it is signed to reveal the words underneath! :-) Much as I hate EULAs I don't think that this line of circumvention will work.
But closing your eyes instead of reading the EULA doesn't mean you weren't presented with it. You were still presented with it, you just chose not to read it by obscuring it.
Actually, think about the implications of people hooking themselves up like this. "I have a box with a button on it, and when I press the button I am so happy... In fact, I don't care that I'm homeless in an alley laying in my own feces because I lost my job/family/house because I couldn't stop pushing the button..." Bums would be begging for new batteries instead of booze money.
That was my thought too. This is like covering the words on a paper contract with masking tape, so that you cannot read it before you sign it. Signing it (hitting I Accept) still makes the contract binding, even if you intentionally couldn't see the words. You can lead a man to a EULA, but you can't make him read it...