Middle class there [in "third-world" countries] is a much better life than middle class here [in the USA or Western Europe presumably].
Sure, middle class life is better in the third-world. Because lower class life is so much worse.
A far smaller middle class has far greater economic power over a larger and very badly off lower class. So otherwise un-affluent memebers of the middle class can easily afford servants, or other products of unskilled manual labor.
On the other hand, to afford a servant in the US means paying at least minimum wage plus health care, and even at that, the employee can get about as much working at McDonalds, or more at a unionized grocery store. So only the very rich (and high ranking "civil servants") have servants in the US.
Re:Just a quote from my biology teacher...
on
Build Your Own Virus
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I believe (English biologist and popularizer of science) Richard Dawkins refers to this logical fallacy as "the argument from personal incredulity". It's often used by creationists, as for instance, "I can't believe an organ as perfectly suited to its function as the eye was created without intelligent design", or "since each particular species of fig is fertilized by a particular species of fig-wasp that can itself only reproduce in its species of fig, I can't conceive of how new species of either fig or fig-wasp can evolve."
With all due respect to your biology teacher, it seems that Hamlet was right:
There are more things in heaven and earth, Jugulator,
Than are dreamt of in your teacher's philosophy.
Furthermore, a biology teacher ought to understand that evolution is NOT "nature's randomness". While a mutation may be randomly produced, evolution works AGAINST randomness -- and works precisly because it defeats randomness by conserving what is useful, and discarding what isn't.
If the AIDS virus is too complex for your teacher to believe it to be natural, what must he think of human origins?
I myself "can't conceive" how a mix of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen networked via electrical pulses, can possibly become self-aware. Yet I see examples everyday, and even occasionally on slashdot. And I don't go looking for an intelligent designer.
Sometimes I just have to wonder which innovation of humanity will kill us all off. =]
Ever wonder if some archaic chimp, something like Sahelanthropus tchadensis looked over at one of his particularly bright brothers, and thought, "A whole bunch like him, making those high-tech hand axes, and we might all be toast"?
(Not that there's any real liklihood Sahelanthropus tchadensis made any stone tools, much less engaged in abstract thought.)
But you're not really 133t until you twist the fifth sheet through 180 degrees before attaching it to the first. For best results, fax from 662-487... (MOBIUS).
Emailed HTML only sprouts ads if your email client can connect to the web.
Get a firewall. Only allow your email client to connect to your mail server's mail ports (25 & 110, usually).
Pop-up ads? Get a filtering proxy. Don't stop the ads from connecting; filter the javascript out of the page you actually want to view so they never spawn a pop-up window in the first place.
"*If* you live in America then your society has decided that you should be given the right of free speech/expression, however this is not a granted thing. It is possible for American society to change the constitution and revoke the right to free speech (not probable, but possible).
In Italy, society has most likely decided that you have a right to free speech within the bounds of society's guidelines."
We call it a "right", not a "privilege", because we believe that it cannot be given -- or taken away -- by government, or even given away by its possesor. That's the essentially message of the American Declaration of Independence.
Read it more closely. It's not a troll. It's an analogy.
Poster 1 said, in effect, 'Conflating the Madonna and pornography is highly offensive to many people, and thus should be banned'
Poster 2, who you think is trolling, offered an analogy: 'I find many aspects of Catholicism highly offensive, so should Catholicism be banned according to Poster 1's reasoning?'
He's posing a simple question: is all speech to be treated uniformly and equally, or is some speech more equal than others?
And you are answering, 'any speech that equates the teachings of the Catholic Church with Madonna pornography, or that is critical of the Catholic Church, should be moded down so that fewer people see it.'
Which, ahem, seems to be the crux -- pun intended -- of the problem: you want other people to be prevented from seeing speech with which you disagree.
Why is that? Do you think other people, upon seeing speech with which you disagree, will not disagree with it? Do you find your opponents' views to be that compelling? Or is it that you find your own views so much less convincing than that which they attempt to refute? Perhaps you'd be less afraid of free, unfettered speech if you had more confidence in your own arguments?
I'm afraid you don't understand: you are a criminal.
You wish to take photos of a movie set; that set is the intellectual property of the movie studio. That the movie set is on public properrty, and that the public has been restricted from it in favor of the movie maker is immaterial. The MPAA will protect its intellectual property regardless.
In any case, allowing anyone to take photographs is dangerous. It is posible to violate copyright by photographing copyrighted works. Your camera, to be legal, should contain hardware than makes it impossible to take photos unless the subject of the photo is cleared with the MPAA or other competent quasi-governmental agency. If your camera is not so equipped, it's clear that you intend to use your camera for illegal violations of copyright.
Of course, since it costs money to combat piracy and to review applications for taking photographs, we must insist that you buy film or other recording media specially taxed to pay these costs. (Excpetion: professional producers, as of movies or commercials, are exempted under law, to promote American cultural hegemony.)
We know that you don't have a license for a camera, and that you haven't paid the recording media tax, because, in accordance with the Intellectual Property Protection Accountability Act, your computer recorded its Globally Unique Identifying Number when you posted your message. As all your commerical activity is recorded under your name to prevent fraud, it was a simple matter to cross-reference purchase records and computer records.
By the time you read this, you should be hearing the knock on your door.
It's more apparent when you've got your default font size set high, as I did, but even at a "normal" font the EFF FAQ hass almost no leading. (The space between one text line and the next, pronounced like the metal lead, as that's what was used in the earliest printing presses to produce said spacing.) Christ, these cascading style sheets are more pain than they're worth.
I also find it odd that people think that they are allow (sic) privacy in a rented vehicle.
You do? Seems to me their is a reasonable expectation of privacy in a rental vehicle. I would certainly not expect monitoring in a car I borrowed from a "friend".
Whether or not there exists a "reasonable expectation of privacy" is crucial, because U.S. courts have generally held that recordings can be made (by State actors or by non-State actors) when there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.
1) It is a reasonable assumption that basic information about the state of the vehicle is recorded, principly that an odomter is present to record milage, and possibly that other recordings relating to vehicle state.
But
2) I certainly do not expect, nor do I believe that a reasonable person would expect, that the rental company does or should, for example, record activity with in vehicle on audio or video tape.
And
3) Given the relatively recent introduction of inexpensive and ubiquitous GPS, it seems that a reasonable person would not necessarily expect GPS to be employed to record the vehicle's position.
I have often thought of writing Hairy Pothead and the Sorcerer, Stoned, about Harry's dissolute adventures with controlled substances and the resulting degradation of his hygiene whilst at university.
It's a question of what you've evolved to ingest safely.
If this sugar substitute is sucessful, it will be found in large quantities in a large number of foods. So you won't end up ingesting a little; in all likelyhood, (especially if you're an American) you'll ingest a lot.
Your body (is built by a genome that) has had at minimum some six million years to become adapted to the natural sugars found in fruits.
It's had no chance to adapt to this substitute.
That it has encountered the basic elements that make up Neotame isn't really relevent. You'll die without sufficient sodium chloride (table salt), but more than 1 part per million of straight chloride will harm you (OSHA permissible exposure limit).
Some physicians even raise questions about the health effects of corn syrup, given that it is added in great quantities to almost all processed foods sold in the U.S. It's not that corn syrup is bad in and of itself, it's a question of what the effects are when one ingests so much more than the body could even have become adapted to in nature.
We have no data about long-term use of Neotame; if you want to provide that data with your body, go ahead. I'll stick with sugar, in moderate quantities.
You must be a member of the Guild to practice the craft of potentially destabilizing research.
You may join the Guild only if your father was a member of the Guild.
In this way, Venice will always control the spice trade with the far East!
. ..
Science must serve a social purpose! Science must be subordinate to the needs of the State and the People. Thus only the State can determine what is proper science, and who is really a scientist.
The 'Jewish Science' is not true Science.
Thank the Furher we threw out that proponent of ridiculous Jewish Science, "Doktor" Einstein! How fortunate that Mussolini got rid of that trouble-maker Fermi! The Jew and Bolshevik scientists are fleeing Europe: John von Neumann, Otto Meyerhof, Otto Loewi, Konrad Bloch, Erwin Chargaff, Fritz Lipmann, Rudolf Schoenheimer, Ernst Boris Chain, Hans Krebs, Max Perutz, Michael Polanyi!
By stamping out the Jewish Science, Germany will once again grow strong!
President Eisenhower asked me to say "I pledge allegience to the Flag...."
The Grand Inquisitor Torquemada tortured me until I said, confessionem esse veram, non factam vi tormentorum, I declare that I am a true and unheretical Catholic....
The good fathers of Salem required that I say I am not a witch, nor have I trafficked with Satan...
Senator Joe McCarthy demanded that I say that I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the Communist Party, or else name names....
Queen Elizabeth I, insisted I renounce Catholicism and "utterly testify and declare in my conscience, that the Queen's Highness is the only supreme Governor of the Realm . . . as well in all Spiritual or Ecclesiastical things or causes as Temporal, . . . So help me God."....
Jack Valenti and Hilary Rosen told me to swear my code does not circumvent or allow others to circumvent the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, under pain of Senator Fritz Hollings's Security Systems Standards and Certification Act requiring me to "include and utilize certified security technologies" on all my electronics.
Here's a homework assignment, Heinrich: look up "Marshall Plan" on Google, then "Berlin Airlift", then try "Fulda Gap".
Then get back to me about how terrible Americans are. Talk to me about how America spent 7% of our GDP to put our soldiers in decrepit World War II-era barracks so that they could defend Hausfrauen like you from your "fraternal brothers" in the DDR.
Tell me about how much the Wessies complained about NATO manuevers and grubby Amerikanische soldiers getting in the way of their BMWs, and how it drove up taxes to spend all of 2% of German GDP on your own German defense.
Explain to me how much worse Germany, and Germans, were treated in the American Sector. Oh, I forgot: after winning the war, we returned power to the Germans by 23 May 1949. Yeah, if Germany had won the war, the Gestapo planned to be out of Poland by... when was it? Once all the Poles had ben deported to slave labor camps? Shortly after the Louvre was fully looted?
Then go crawl back into your hole.
You are either an ungrateful son of a bitch or woefully ignorant of you own country's history. I'm not sure which, in a German, is scarier.
A substantially different finding in another Curcuit would force the Supreme Court to resolve the conflict between the Cuircut Courts. As 2600 explains it, this is precisly what they DON'T want, as it seems they'd prefer NOT to have the case appealled to the Supreme Court because they fear they'd get an adverse ruling.
So this would, at best, give a limited and ephemeral victory folowed by a lasting adverse precedent beyond any chance of appeal. Better to wait for a more sympathetic Supreme Court, or a more perceptive legislature. Oh course, that will be quite a wait.
(But... "A lot can happen in a year. The King might die, I might die, the horse might die. Or the horse might learn to talk")
..But you can rest easy! Just remember that any Supreme Court appointee must be approved by both houses of congress.
No.
The U.S. Constitution, at Article II, Section II (Powers of the U.S. President), paragraph 2, states "[the U.S. President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court...
Only the Senate "advises and consents"; the House of Representatives and its members has no say in the matter.
Slashdot Mirror
Middle class there [in "third-world" countries] is a much better life than middle class here [in the USA or Western Europe presumably].
Sure, middle class life is better in the third-world. Because lower class life is so much worse.
A far smaller middle class has far greater economic power over a larger and very badly off lower class. So otherwise un-affluent memebers of the middle class can easily afford servants, or other products of unskilled manual labor.
On the other hand, to afford a servant in the US means paying at least minimum wage plus health care, and even at that, the employee can get about as much working at McDonalds, or more at a unionized grocery store. So only the very rich (and high ranking "civil servants") have servants in the US.
I believe (English biologist and popularizer of science) Richard Dawkins refers to this logical fallacy as "the argument from personal incredulity". It's often used by creationists, as for instance, "I can't believe an organ as perfectly suited to its function as the eye was created without intelligent design", or "since each particular species of fig is fertilized by a particular species of fig-wasp that can itself only reproduce in its species of fig, I can't conceive of how new species of either fig or fig-wasp can evolve."
With all due respect to your biology teacher, it seems that Hamlet was right:
There are more things in heaven and earth, Jugulator,
Than are dreamt of in your teacher's philosophy.
Furthermore, a biology teacher ought to understand that evolution is NOT "nature's randomness". While a mutation may be randomly produced, evolution works AGAINST randomness -- and works precisly because it defeats randomness by conserving what is useful, and discarding what isn't.
If the AIDS virus is too complex for your teacher to believe it to be natural, what must he think of human origins?
I myself "can't conceive" how a mix of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen networked via electrical pulses, can possibly become self-aware. Yet I see examples everyday, and even occasionally on slashdot. And I don't go looking for an intelligent designer.
Er. Watson & Crick proposed their model of DNA in 1953, not 1955.
Ever wonder if some archaic chimp, something like Sahelanthropus tchadensis looked over at one of his particularly bright brothers, and thought, "A whole bunch like him, making those high-tech hand axes, and we might all be toast"?
(Not that there's any real liklihood Sahelanthropus tchadensis made any stone tools, much less engaged in abstract thought.)
But you're not really 133t until you twist the fifth sheet through 180 degrees before attaching it to the first. For best results, fax from 662-487... (MOBIUS).
Emailed HTML only sprouts ads if your email client can connect to the web.
Get a firewall. Only allow your email client to connect to your mail server's mail ports (25 & 110, usually).
Pop-up ads? Get a filtering proxy. Don't stop the ads from connecting; filter the javascript out of the page you actually want to view so they never spawn a pop-up window in the first place.
"*If* you live in America then your society has decided that you should be given the right of free speech/expression, however this is not a granted thing. It is possible for American society to change the constitution and revoke the right to free speech (not probable, but possible).
In Italy, society has most likely decided that you have a right to free speech within the bounds of society's guidelines."
We call it a "right", not a "privilege", because we believe that it cannot be given -- or taken away -- by government, or even given away by its possesor. That's the essentially message of the American Declaration of Independence.
Read it more closely. It's not a troll. It's an analogy.
Poster 1 said, in effect, 'Conflating the Madonna and pornography is highly offensive to many people, and thus should be banned'
Poster 2, who you think is trolling, offered an analogy: 'I find many aspects of Catholicism highly offensive, so should Catholicism be banned according to Poster 1's reasoning?'
He's posing a simple question: is all speech to be treated uniformly and equally, or is some speech more equal than others?
And you are answering, 'any speech that equates the teachings of the Catholic Church with Madonna pornography, or that is critical of the Catholic Church, should be moded down so that fewer people see it.'
Which, ahem, seems to be the crux -- pun intended -- of the problem: you want other people to be prevented from seeing speech with which you disagree.
Why is that? Do you think other people, upon seeing speech with which you disagree, will not disagree with it? Do you find your opponents' views to be that compelling? Or is it that you find your own views so much less convincing than that which they attempt to refute? Perhaps you'd be less afraid of free, unfettered speech if you had more confidence in your own arguments?
I'm afraid you don't understand: you are a criminal.
You wish to take photos of a movie set; that set is the intellectual property of the movie studio. That the movie set is on public properrty, and that the public has been restricted from it in favor of the movie maker is immaterial. The MPAA will protect its intellectual property regardless.
In any case, allowing anyone to take photographs is dangerous. It is posible to violate copyright by photographing copyrighted works. Your camera, to be legal, should contain hardware than makes it impossible to take photos unless the subject of the photo is cleared with the MPAA or other competent quasi-governmental agency. If your camera is not so equipped, it's clear that you intend to use your camera for illegal violations of copyright.
Of course, since it costs money to combat piracy and to review applications for taking photographs, we must insist that you buy film or other recording media specially taxed to pay these costs. (Excpetion: professional producers, as of movies or commercials, are exempted under law, to promote American cultural hegemony.)
We know that you don't have a license for a camera, and that you haven't paid the recording media tax, because, in accordance with the Intellectual Property Protection Accountability Act, your computer recorded its Globally Unique Identifying Number when you posted your message. As all your commerical activity is recorded under your name to prevent fraud, it was a simple matter to cross-reference purchase records and computer records.
By the time you read this, you should be hearing the knock on your door.
I think I'd mod the above up, given the opportunity.
It's more apparent when you've got your default font size set high, as I did, but even at a "normal" font the EFF FAQ hass almost no leading. (The space between one text line and the next, pronounced like the metal lead, as that's what was used in the earliest printing presses to produce said spacing.) Christ, these cascading style sheets are more pain than they're worth.
How about:
Get A. Life
123 Too Much Time On My Hands Street
Trekkieopolis, Nerdinistan
Dude, you're NOT gettin' a life!
You do? Seems to me their is a reasonable expectation of privacy in a rental vehicle. I would certainly not expect monitoring in a car I borrowed from a "friend".
Whether or not there exists a "reasonable expectation of privacy" is crucial, because U.S. courts have generally held that recordings can be made (by State actors or by non-State actors) when there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.
1) It is a reasonable assumption that basic information about the state of the vehicle is recorded, principly that an odomter is present to record milage, and possibly that other recordings relating to vehicle state.
But
2) I certainly do not expect, nor do I believe that a reasonable person would expect, that the rental company does or should, for example, record activity with in vehicle on audio or video tape.
And
3) Given the relatively recent introduction of inexpensive and ubiquitous GPS, it seems that a reasonable person would not necessarily expect GPS to be employed to record the vehicle's position.
I have often thought of writing Hairy Pothead and the Sorcerer, Stoned, about Harry's dissolute adventures with controlled substances and the resulting degradation of his hygiene whilst at university.
It's a question of what you've evolved to ingest safely.
If this sugar substitute is sucessful, it will be found in large quantities in a large number of foods. So you won't end up ingesting a little; in all likelyhood, (especially if you're an American) you'll ingest a lot.
Your body (is built by a genome that) has had at minimum some six million years to become adapted to the natural sugars found in fruits.
It's had no chance to adapt to this substitute.
That it has encountered the basic elements that make up Neotame isn't really relevent. You'll die without sufficient sodium chloride (table salt), but more than 1 part per million of straight chloride will harm you (OSHA permissible exposure limit).
Some physicians even raise questions about the health effects of corn syrup, given that it is added in great quantities to almost all processed foods sold in the U.S. It's not that corn syrup is bad in and of itself, it's a question of what the effects are when one ingests so much more than the body could even have become adapted to in nature.
We have no data about long-term use of Neotame; if you want to provide that data with your body, go ahead. I'll stick with sugar, in moderate quantities.
...So they're as placid and loyal as your dogs.
So you're saying the Simputer is a stealth birth control device, designed to lower Third World population growth?
You must be a member of the Guild to practice the craft of potentially destabilizing research.
.
.
You may join the Guild only if your father was a member of the Guild.
In this way, Venice will always control the spice trade with the far East!
. .
Science must serve a social purpose! Science must be subordinate to the needs of the State and the People. Thus only the State can determine what is proper science, and who is really a scientist.
The 'Jewish Science' is not true Science.
Thank the Furher we threw out that proponent of ridiculous Jewish Science, "Doktor" Einstein! How fortunate that Mussolini got rid of that trouble-maker Fermi! The Jew and Bolshevik scientists are fleeing Europe: John von Neumann, Otto Meyerhof, Otto Loewi, Konrad Bloch, Erwin Chargaff, Fritz Lipmann, Rudolf Schoenheimer, Ernst Boris Chain, Hans Krebs, Max Perutz, Michael Polanyi!
By stamping out the Jewish Science, Germany will once again grow strong!
. .
And thus soon to be illegal under the DMCA/SSSCA.
President Eisenhower asked me to say "I pledge allegience to the Flag...."
The Grand Inquisitor Torquemada tortured me until I said, confessionem esse veram, non factam vi tormentorum, I declare that I am a true and unheretical Catholic....
The good fathers of Salem required that I say I am not a witch, nor have I trafficked with Satan...
Senator Joe McCarthy demanded that I say that I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the Communist Party, or else name names....
Queen Elizabeth I, insisted I renounce Catholicism and "utterly testify and declare in my conscience, that the Queen's Highness is the only supreme Governor of the Realm . . . as well in all Spiritual or Ecclesiastical things or causes as Temporal, . . . So help me God."....
Jack Valenti and Hilary Rosen told me to swear my code does not circumvent or allow others to circumvent the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, under pain of Senator Fritz Hollings's Security Systems Standards and Certification Act requiring me to "include and utilize certified security technologies" on all my electronics.
Here's a homework assignment, Heinrich: look up "Marshall Plan" on Google, then "Berlin Airlift", then try "Fulda Gap".
Then get back to me about how terrible Americans are. Talk to me about how America spent 7% of our GDP to put our soldiers in decrepit World War II-era barracks so that they could defend Hausfrauen like you from your "fraternal brothers" in the DDR.
Tell me about how much the Wessies complained about NATO manuevers and grubby Amerikanische soldiers getting in the way of their BMWs, and how it drove up taxes to spend all of 2% of German GDP on your own German defense.
Explain to me how much worse Germany, and Germans, were treated in the American Sector. Oh, I forgot: after winning the war, we returned power to the Germans by 23 May 1949. Yeah, if Germany had won the war, the Gestapo planned to be out of Poland by... when was it? Once all the Poles had ben deported to slave labor camps? Shortly after the Louvre was fully looted?
Then go crawl back into your hole.
You are either an ungrateful son of a bitch or woefully ignorant of you own country's history. I'm not sure which, in a German, is scarier.
'pedantic nerd': no double "E"s?
you're, not your
A substantially different finding in another Curcuit would force the Supreme Court to resolve the conflict between the Cuircut Courts. As 2600 explains it, this is precisly what they DON'T want, as it seems they'd prefer NOT to have the case appealled to the Supreme Court because they fear they'd get an adverse ruling.
So this would, at best, give a limited and ephemeral victory folowed by a lasting adverse precedent beyond any chance of appeal. Better to wait for a more sympathetic Supreme Court, or a more perceptive legislature. Oh course, that will be quite a wait.
(But... "A lot can happen in a year. The King might die, I might die, the horse might die. Or the horse might learn to talk")
No.
The U.S. Constitution, at Article II, Section II (Powers of the U.S. President), paragraph 2, states "[the U.S. President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court ...
Only the Senate "advises and consents"; the House of Representatives and its members has no say in the matter.