Madison's personal views have no legal force. The General Welfare clause of the Constitution does, and as one of the people who wrote the thing Madison should have realized that. The clause is not qualified in the text. If the writers of the Constitution had wanted it qualified, they should have done so, or, better yet, left it off.
Private charity works much better in small homogenous communities than in a modern city. Moreover, it was overwhelmed by the Depression, since there were structural problems with the economy that could only be fixed through government spending.
I see. You do believe the left is monolithic, that the right is synonymous with individual liberty, and cannot perceive right-wing ideas in current media. In other words, you can't be reasoned with.
There was a category of novice users that I thought would be well served by Ubuntu or Mint or something like that, but their needs are mostly met by tablets nowadays.
Supporting Muslim rights, yes. Supporting terror attacks, no. Don't confuse the two. Remember the recent attack in Britain? The mosque involved warned the authorities, and they were not allowed to be buried as Muslims. That's pretty definite opposition.
The problem I have with the manufacturers being on the hook is that the manufacturers can't necessarily make the victims whole. If a defective car kills me, or gives me a painful or debilitating medical condition for the rest of my life, I'm going to consider a cash settlement as inadequate (well, if I'm considering at all, but I think my loved ones want me around more than they want a cashout).
Regrettably, this sort of crap has been going on for quite some time now, so "turning into" isn't the right word. Apparently, the US Supreme Court decided to give the Fourth a time-out.
Economic progress comes by eliminating jobs. People who drive taxis now can learn to do other jobs later. It can be awfully hard on people in transition, or people who didn't want to transition, but we can do things to make it easier for them.
Got news for you: there's already lethal technology out there on the roads. The only reason I haven't killed anyone out there is because I'm a reasonably good driver who hasn't gotten really unlucky. Last I looked, they still allowed potentially lethal one-ton+ devices to travel at speeds over 27m/s under human control, and that's with tens of thousands of deaths a year.
Yup. Sounds great, at this point. Experimenters can pick whichever of these look the best to them, and we can see what happens and use that to make more appropriate regs.
It would be useful to learn how to keep people healthy going to Mars and living on it. Mars almost certainly has no resources worth sending back to Earth, given the expense involved. A second home for humanity is a really long shot. It would require that Mars be absolutely self-sustaining and have a good deal of surplus. It would require a large population, which isn't happening any time soon. That would take centuries, at a minimum.
Tesla sure looks interested in safety to me. The autopilot works well, as long as you don't try making it do stuff you're explicitly told not to make it do. The cars themselves seem quite safe.
Space-X is not pushing frontiers. Space-X is doing stuff we've already been doing for decades and slashing the cost. This is very valuable, but it's not what Tyson was talking about.
Musk wants to go to Mars, but we'll see how that plays out. As Tyson pointed out, there's no profit potential. Musk can spend his own money, but getting a publicly held corporation to go along is by no means guaranteed.
There is value in getting people to Mars, but it's the sort of general value that a government is best at providing. Space-X has benefited from NASA before, and perhaps will for the Mars mission.
Which theory of ethics are we operating under here? And what assumptions are you making?
Under a no harm-no foul approach, pirating something when you can't legally buy it is justifiable, to give an example. There's also ethical frameworks in which retaliation is ethical.
Could you rephrase that argument to make sense? You claimed that Trump is not a moron, which I do understand. You also claimed he has philosophies, which I've been unable to perceive. As far as the rest....
The US media is, for the most part, considerably to the right of my political positions. They may, in general, be left of yours. This is stuff we can see without any sort of bias or cognitive dissonance. However, you don't get to define the left to the exclusion of those of us who are leftists, and you don't get to claim that everything to the left of your opinions is left-wing.
By observation, I see a number of right-wing opinions all over. Left-wing opinions (and there's a lot of varied opinions over here) certainly aren't the only ones in play. Having some knowledge of the Hegelian Dialectic, I see nothing applicable, and the list of countries that have been influenced by Hegelian thinking is both considerably longer than yours, and irrelevant to the point.
For most of us on the Left, that Trump is deficient in some areas (not necessarily a moron) is not an argument but a conclusion. We generally have reasons for our positions, but it's impossible to discuss policies with people who dismiss our arguments out of hand.
A newspaper has lots of room for print, but even so it can't report everything of interest. Other media are more limited.
Therefore, all you can possibly get from any news source is a curated collection of facts, which have been selected by biased human beings. Connections between facts shade into opinion, which needs to be included to make the facts more digestible. All news sources will be, and always have been, biased.
The big difference between now and fifty years ago is that we now have many more possible news outlets. Fifty years ago, we had a small selection of newspapers and news magazines to read, and radio and television news, and fact-checking any of it was difficult at best.
Nope. Nothing gets erased. Things are barred from showing up on certain searches, which is old hat to Internet search companies.
A long time ago, records were paper and searchable as paper, so if you did something wrong it wouldn't be associated with you after some time. Credit bureaus, for example, could have legal limits on how far back they could go.
This is an attempt to return to that long-ago time when you could have a second chance to make good.
Okay, when did masked Apple operatives kill your kid sister? Apple uses the patent system like other large companies, produces products many people buy for very good reasons, and the only way Apple can push the industry is to offer things to consumers that the consumers want. BTW, you don't need iTunes to use an iPhone, and you haven't in years.
Slashdot Mirror
Madison's personal views have no legal force. The General Welfare clause of the Constitution does, and as one of the people who wrote the thing Madison should have realized that. The clause is not qualified in the text. If the writers of the Constitution had wanted it qualified, they should have done so, or, better yet, left it off.
Private charity works much better in small homogenous communities than in a modern city. Moreover, it was overwhelmed by the Depression, since there were structural problems with the economy that could only be fixed through government spending.
I see. You do believe the left is monolithic, that the right is synonymous with individual liberty, and cannot perceive right-wing ideas in current media. In other words, you can't be reasoned with.
I've never had problems refusing an upgrade (usually the last major iOS version available for whatever phone I'm using).
I had a printer once that was a little wonky, and I never did get any of the Windows machines to reliably talk to it. On Linux, it was trivial.
There was a category of novice users that I thought would be well served by Ubuntu or Mint or something like that, but their needs are mostly met by tablets nowadays.
And there are distros that at least try to do that.
Supporting Muslim rights, yes. Supporting terror attacks, no. Don't confuse the two. Remember the recent attack in Britain? The mosque involved warned the authorities, and they were not allowed to be buried as Muslims. That's pretty definite opposition.
The problem I have with the manufacturers being on the hook is that the manufacturers can't necessarily make the victims whole. If a defective car kills me, or gives me a painful or debilitating medical condition for the rest of my life, I'm going to consider a cash settlement as inadequate (well, if I'm considering at all, but I think my loved ones want me around more than they want a cashout).
Regrettably, this sort of crap has been going on for quite some time now, so "turning into" isn't the right word. Apparently, the US Supreme Court decided to give the Fourth a time-out.
Economic progress comes by eliminating jobs. People who drive taxis now can learn to do other jobs later. It can be awfully hard on people in transition, or people who didn't want to transition, but we can do things to make it easier for them.
Got news for you: there's already lethal technology out there on the roads. The only reason I haven't killed anyone out there is because I'm a reasonably good driver who hasn't gotten really unlucky. Last I looked, they still allowed potentially lethal one-ton+ devices to travel at speeds over 27m/s under human control, and that's with tens of thousands of deaths a year.
Yup. Sounds great, at this point. Experimenters can pick whichever of these look the best to them, and we can see what happens and use that to make more appropriate regs.
It would be useful to learn how to keep people healthy going to Mars and living on it. Mars almost certainly has no resources worth sending back to Earth, given the expense involved. A second home for humanity is a really long shot. It would require that Mars be absolutely self-sustaining and have a good deal of surplus. It would require a large population, which isn't happening any time soon. That would take centuries, at a minimum.
Tesla sure looks interested in safety to me. The autopilot works well, as long as you don't try making it do stuff you're explicitly told not to make it do. The cars themselves seem quite safe.
Space-X is not pushing frontiers. Space-X is doing stuff we've already been doing for decades and slashing the cost. This is very valuable, but it's not what Tyson was talking about.
Musk wants to go to Mars, but we'll see how that plays out. As Tyson pointed out, there's no profit potential. Musk can spend his own money, but getting a publicly held corporation to go along is by no means guaranteed.
There is value in getting people to Mars, but it's the sort of general value that a government is best at providing. Space-X has benefited from NASA before, and perhaps will for the Mars mission.
Jobs forced through ease of use. Computers of various sorts would be harder to use without him.
If the copyright holders were never going to get paid by you anyway, they don't lose anything if you torrent it.
Which theory of ethics are we operating under here? And what assumptions are you making?
Under a no harm-no foul approach, pirating something when you can't legally buy it is justifiable, to give an example. There's also ethical frameworks in which retaliation is ethical.
There are no safe weapons. This looks to me to be safer than most (except to the target).
Could you rephrase that argument to make sense? You claimed that Trump is not a moron, which I do understand. You also claimed he has philosophies, which I've been unable to perceive. As far as the rest....
The US media is, for the most part, considerably to the right of my political positions. They may, in general, be left of yours. This is stuff we can see without any sort of bias or cognitive dissonance. However, you don't get to define the left to the exclusion of those of us who are leftists, and you don't get to claim that everything to the left of your opinions is left-wing.
By observation, I see a number of right-wing opinions all over. Left-wing opinions (and there's a lot of varied opinions over here) certainly aren't the only ones in play. Having some knowledge of the Hegelian Dialectic, I see nothing applicable, and the list of countries that have been influenced by Hegelian thinking is both considerably longer than yours, and irrelevant to the point.
For most of us on the Left, that Trump is deficient in some areas (not necessarily a moron) is not an argument but a conclusion. We generally have reasons for our positions, but it's impossible to discuss policies with people who dismiss our arguments out of hand.
A newspaper has lots of room for print, but even so it can't report everything of interest. Other media are more limited.
Therefore, all you can possibly get from any news source is a curated collection of facts, which have been selected by biased human beings. Connections between facts shade into opinion, which needs to be included to make the facts more digestible. All news sources will be, and always have been, biased.
The big difference between now and fifty years ago is that we now have many more possible news outlets. Fifty years ago, we had a small selection of newspapers and news magazines to read, and radio and television news, and fact-checking any of it was difficult at best.
GPs culture apparently allows calling other people out when they claim stupid things as part of their culture.
Mine allows me to point out meta complications.
Nope. Nothing gets erased. Things are barred from showing up on certain searches, which is old hat to Internet search companies.
A long time ago, records were paper and searchable as paper, so if you did something wrong it wouldn't be associated with you after some time. Credit bureaus, for example, could have legal limits on how far back they could go.
This is an attempt to return to that long-ago time when you could have a second chance to make good.
The EU may not be perfect, but it has better history education.
Okay, when did masked Apple operatives kill your kid sister? Apple uses the patent system like other large companies, produces products many people buy for very good reasons, and the only way Apple can push the industry is to offer things to consumers that the consumers want. BTW, you don't need iTunes to use an iPhone, and you haven't in years.