The rational was that America was evil. A work of the devil, and thus anything American that can be attacked is attacking evil.
So when Osama was on our CIA payroll, attacking the Soviets, were we more or less evil than we are now? Were they more or less evil than we were? Vis-a-vis is/are?
You do realize that "the deficit" and "taxes" only differ in time frame, right? The deficit is paid off by future taxes, meaning that the higher the deficit goes, the higher taxes will have to rise at some point in the future to pay for it all.
Logically, you'd be correct, but this is government.
My fullest understanding of their use of that word 'deficit' is - the money we use and will never, ever pay back, even if we have to engineer a revolution and overthrow this government to get out from under it.
A) You've got daddy issues, or something. I've tried to rephrase this about six or seven times, and I can't think of a better way to say it. Find someone to talk to, for your own health, please.
B) I've attributed things in my own life to miraculous intervention. I hope that one day you'll be able to feel what that feels like as well. But sitting where I do, there's genuinely no doubt of presence vs absence. Can't say as I have all the answers, but 'deadbeat' is ruled out pretty readily.
C) The entire POINT of putting the proverbial apple in the garden was to lead us down this path. He/She/It/They designed us this way, and would likely have been rather disappointed to note that Eve obeyed without question.
If there is a possibility it didn't, then the God hypothesis is overly complex.
Well, that's rather the POINT of religion, is it not?
I have prayed, on more than one occasion, to be so blessed as to win the lottery. (I have a plan for how I'd disperse it and everything.)
Needless to say, it hasn't happened yet.
Complex hypothesis, indeed. But we'll never rule His sentience. Wherein God knows better than we do, and does as He pleases, there's not going to be a lot of room for measurement.
Before we decide that this is too great a loophole, I'd challenge you to apply this sort of measurement to any female of the human species. You'll find their decision making processes equally as elusive, I assure you.
If god created the universe then why can't people of all faiths see science as a way to get closer to god by unlocking the mysteries of the universe.
Indeed it is.
4 “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.
I have always believed that this passage is a parable describing what separates us from the other animals on the planet. We started off as they are, amoral and ignorant. God offered us a path towards being as he is, and dared us not to take it.
Creationists are well known for demanding unrealistic levels of proof for evolution or big bang cosmology. In their case it's comparable to finding a corpse with a back full of bullets and refusing to accept that it's likely a case of murder - since no-one was there to witness it.
Pinning this particular doubt on creationists alone is intellectually dishonest. You'll find all sorts of similar contention in every single area of 'observation science'. You'll also find various levels of retcon-ing what the 'truth' is if you follow any of these fields long enough. Here are some samples:
A) What killed the dinosaurs?
B) What causes global warming?
C) When did humans first use language?
D) Which species is the 'missing link'?
For all or any of these, repose the same question in the frame of mind of a person from our past or future. What was the answer 100 years ago? 50? 10? What about 50 into the future?
It isn't so much a matter of 'back full of bullets' as a back that may or may not have had some holes in it at some point. Now it definitely did. No wait, now it didn't. Now we're reasonable certain that it did. No wait, now it didn't again. Ad nauseum.
As a final point, I'd offer that any true scientist ought to love, love, love the uncertainty of it all, because once you've solved it you're done. It's only the dogmatic and zealous that use these tenuous, fleeting moments of our understanding as a club of 'truth' to force others to fall into one world view or another. Those types would make genuinely horrible scientists, as they'd already know all the 'answers' before running any experiments at all.
God can just giggle at us as his brilliantly faked universe tricks us into eternal damnation as we follow the evidence.
This, this right here is key to understanding the essential gap between atheist fundamentalists and normal people. Observe how the very meaning of life is illustrated in two points:
A) God is amused by our suffering (or at least by our bewilderment.) and B) The point of science is to tempt us into damnation.
Neither of these concepts are presented anywhere within the Christian dogma, so where did they come from?
No, I think religion is the *prime* motive for a lot of shit people does, not a "mere justification".
If you believe someone can become a suicide terrorist without religion, then you really don't understand people... or religion.
It wouldn't follow, though, to attack the Twin Towers. What sort of religious icon were they? To say that 9/11 was a religious attack, rather than a political one, you'd need to demonstrate how that religion sought to further it's ends through the attack. Has the falling of the towers made Islam stronger, or weaker, or was there no change?
Please do explain how this works, because from where I sit it seems entirely political in nature, with a religious wrapping - which is just what the Parent is suggesting.
If that were only true, you'd find the political landscape much more placid.
It isn't that 'they' don't want to pay for it, but they don't want 'the government' to pay for it. Doesn't much matter if the money comes from taxes or the deficit. They're against it either way.
Our rights aren't whitelisted. We have the right to do as we please as long as we don't hurt anyone else. If I am not in any way hurting an artist by listening to a recording of his song, why would I need his permission to do so? Yes, I really do think that if I read a funny joke online, I can tell it to my friends tomorrow without mailing the original author to see if he wishes to allow me to do that or not. I really do think that if you reply with some clever argument, I can share the argument with other people without requesting your permission to do so.
Now... You can argue that if we, as a society, don't enforce IP rights strongly enough, people won't produce more IP. I might or might not agree but that purely practical issue doesn't really have anything to do with ethics.
I understand your position, but so long as we have any ownership of creative output, these kinds of things need to be respected.
If you want to create your own material and release it without restriction, you're absolutely free to do so.
Anyway, what you're going for is a comparison of harm versus control. Does the music maker have more or less control when there's no harm done? Certainly a woman has the right to not be raped, but what about the right to not be dry humped? Has any harm actually come to her in this way?
I think society sides with the permission angle more often than not.
You don't run AV because you're not under a severe enough attack - NOT because you'd be adequately protected if you were.
I realize I don't need to tell someone like yourself this, but you're omitting it, and I think it harms your position. Despite Linux's design, it can and does fall under attack, and it receives continuous security updates as a result of that. Were the attacks to expand into the ferocity that they do in Windows, you'd need to add AV.
Yeah, I largely agree. They're doing the right thing here. If people need this free thing, they'll be prompted to go get it. That's in the customer's best interest, and if they didn't do it, they'd catch hell over that, too. In fact, they HAVE been catching it for their security situation for the past decade or more.
Can Picasso sue you or put you in jail for burning his painting after you paid him 10 million for it?
Microsoft say yes you can. Which I disagree with. That is the point.
Did you enter into an agreement with Picasso not to do so?
It isn't the art that matters, it is the terms at which it was transferred to you.
I'm not saying that Kinect has such a creature, because I genuinely do not know. But if it did, and you didn't opt out of it, you really should be bound by it.
And, again, I don't agree with the power these hold. I think there need to be more limits on what can be put in them. But currently, the sky is the limit, and we all know it.
"Apparently you have not read the EULA. If you had, you'd realize that you are actually leasing a rented license."
I certainly don't care about the EULA. They can say "we're just renting it to you" all they like, but it's still mine.
At the point where you learned of the conditions and did not immediately demand a refund, you agreed to them. I don't think the courts would look kindly on your agreeing to only the parts of the agreement you like.
Now, were you to claim that there was no agreement, that would be a completely different matter. But you're not saying that, are you?
Microsoft needs to understand that when they sell someone a piece of hardware, it is no longer Microsoft's to control outside of allowing it on their network or not.
Yes, please keep pointing this out to them until they realize they need to start licensing hardware to us./sigh
...your politicians at least make an half-hearted attempt to protect your rights. Ours sold them at firesale prices to the content companies. So we're to either pay up or face insane fines and/or jail terms.
So we have a RIGHT to use someone else's content without their consent?
I can see having the right to copy something you paid for, but the right to just take for free whatever you wish doesn't seem to be a tenable position.
I have both, and in many ways HuluPlus is superior to Netflix. I'm probably overpaying by about half, and I do want them to take my dollars and reinvest them, but for the completely-TV-free household, we do appreciate having both.
Some examples:
Law and Order - Netflix has them all, and so does Plus. On Plus they'll play back-to-back-to-back. On Netflix you have to press play on each and every one. If you just want something on in the background while, say, playing WoW - go Hulu. If you're looking for one specific show, or just want one to play out while you go to bed (my wife does this, don't ask), then clearly, Netflix.
Simpsons - Netflix doesn't have it. Plus still only has five. So Hulu here, but not necessarily Plus. Family Guy, OTOH, has all 190-or-so episodes up there on Plus. And, as I said above, it will play them one after another until your brain oozes out your ears.
Movies - Plus is a joke. Forget about it. Netflix doesn't have as many as I'd like to see, but there are several good ones if you're willing to settle.
There are other examples as well, but the best experience is found in blending them both.
The whole point of watching TV online is to NOT pay for it.
Bzzzt. Wrong. The whole point of paying to watch TV online is not having to manage your own DVR. When you can get everything you want directly online without having to worry about cats and/or baseball games (or viruses, etc), why not plunk down a few extra dollars? Time saved is money earned.
Slashdot Mirror
True, but that's not 'placebo' so much as 'therapy'.
The rational was that America was evil. A work of the devil, and thus anything American that can be attacked is attacking evil.
So when Osama was on our CIA payroll, attacking the Soviets, were we more or less evil than we are now? Were they more or less evil than we were? Vis-a-vis is/are?
You do realize that "the deficit" and "taxes" only differ in time frame, right? The deficit is paid off by future taxes, meaning that the higher the deficit goes, the higher taxes will have to rise at some point in the future to pay for it all.
Logically, you'd be correct, but this is government.
My fullest understanding of their use of that word 'deficit' is - the money we use and will never, ever pay back, even if we have to engineer a revolution and overthrow this government to get out from under it.
A) You've got daddy issues, or something. I've tried to rephrase this about six or seven times, and I can't think of a better way to say it. Find someone to talk to, for your own health, please.
B) I've attributed things in my own life to miraculous intervention. I hope that one day you'll be able to feel what that feels like as well. But sitting where I do, there's genuinely no doubt of presence vs absence. Can't say as I have all the answers, but 'deadbeat' is ruled out pretty readily.
C) The entire POINT of putting the proverbial apple in the garden was to lead us down this path. He/She/It/They designed us this way, and would likely have been rather disappointed to note that Eve obeyed without question.
If there is a possibility it didn't, then the God hypothesis is overly complex.
Well, that's rather the POINT of religion, is it not?
I have prayed, on more than one occasion, to be so blessed as to win the lottery. (I have a plan for how I'd disperse it and everything.)
Needless to say, it hasn't happened yet.
Complex hypothesis, indeed. But we'll never rule His sentience. Wherein God knows better than we do, and does as He pleases, there's not going to be a lot of room for measurement.
Before we decide that this is too great a loophole, I'd challenge you to apply this sort of measurement to any female of the human species. You'll find their decision making processes equally as elusive, I assure you.
If god created the universe then why can't people of all faiths see science as a way to get closer to god by unlocking the mysteries of the universe.
Indeed it is.
4 “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.
I have always believed that this passage is a parable describing what separates us from the other animals on the planet. We started off as they are, amoral and ignorant. God offered us a path towards being as he is, and dared us not to take it.
Creationists are well known for demanding unrealistic levels of proof for evolution or big bang cosmology. In their case it's comparable to finding a corpse with a back full of bullets and refusing to accept that it's likely a case of murder - since no-one was there to witness it.
Pinning this particular doubt on creationists alone is intellectually dishonest. You'll find all sorts of similar contention in every single area of 'observation science'. You'll also find various levels of retcon-ing what the 'truth' is if you follow any of these fields long enough. Here are some samples:
A) What killed the dinosaurs?
B) What causes global warming?
C) When did humans first use language?
D) Which species is the 'missing link'?
For all or any of these, repose the same question in the frame of mind of a person from our past or future. What was the answer 100 years ago? 50? 10? What about 50 into the future?
It isn't so much a matter of 'back full of bullets' as a back that may or may not have had some holes in it at some point. Now it definitely did. No wait, now it didn't. Now we're reasonable certain that it did. No wait, now it didn't again. Ad nauseum.
As a final point, I'd offer that any true scientist ought to love, love, love the uncertainty of it all, because once you've solved it you're done. It's only the dogmatic and zealous that use these tenuous, fleeting moments of our understanding as a club of 'truth' to force others to fall into one world view or another. Those types would make genuinely horrible scientists, as they'd already know all the 'answers' before running any experiments at all.
God can just giggle at us as his brilliantly faked universe tricks us into eternal damnation as we follow the evidence.
This, this right here is key to understanding the essential gap between atheist fundamentalists and normal people. Observe how the very meaning of life is illustrated in two points:
A) God is amused by our suffering (or at least by our bewilderment.)
and
B) The point of science is to tempt us into damnation.
Neither of these concepts are presented anywhere within the Christian dogma, so where did they come from?
No, I think religion is the *prime* motive for a lot of shit people does, not a "mere justification".
If you believe someone can become a suicide terrorist without religion, then you really don't understand people... or religion.
It wouldn't follow, though, to attack the Twin Towers. What sort of religious icon were they? To say that 9/11 was a religious attack, rather than a political one, you'd need to demonstrate how that religion sought to further it's ends through the attack. Has the falling of the towers made Islam stronger, or weaker, or was there no change?
Please do explain how this works, because from where I sit it seems entirely political in nature, with a religious wrapping - which is just what the Parent is suggesting.
If that were only true, you'd find the political landscape much more placid.
It isn't that 'they' don't want to pay for it, but they don't want 'the government' to pay for it. Doesn't much matter if the money comes from taxes or the deficit. They're against it either way.
Slashdot, and other US-centric sites, will surely miss your valued contribution.
Our rights aren't whitelisted. We have the right to do as we please as long as we don't hurt anyone else. If I am not in any way hurting an artist by listening to a recording of his song, why would I need his permission to do so? Yes, I really do think that if I read a funny joke online, I can tell it to my friends tomorrow without mailing the original author to see if he wishes to allow me to do that or not. I really do think that if you reply with some clever argument, I can share the argument with other people without requesting your permission to do so.
Now... You can argue that if we, as a society, don't enforce IP rights strongly enough, people won't produce more IP. I might or might not agree but that purely practical issue doesn't really have anything to do with ethics.
I understand your position, but so long as we have any ownership of creative output, these kinds of things need to be respected.
If you want to create your own material and release it without restriction, you're absolutely free to do so.
Anyway, what you're going for is a comparison of harm versus control. Does the music maker have more or less control when there's no harm done? Certainly a woman has the right to not be raped, but what about the right to not be dry humped? Has any harm actually come to her in this way?
I think society sides with the permission angle more often than not.
You don't run AV because you're not under a severe enough attack - NOT because you'd be adequately protected if you were.
I realize I don't need to tell someone like yourself this, but you're omitting it, and I think it harms your position. Despite Linux's design, it can and does fall under attack, and it receives continuous security updates as a result of that. Were the attacks to expand into the ferocity that they do in Windows, you'd need to add AV.
Excellent rebuttal. Your value as a discussion partner is clearly illustrated.
Complaining about people reading your public messages is like complaining the people are listening to your music when you broadcast it over the radio.
...which actually happens! So yeah, I guess you accidentally found a valid analogy. :D
Yeah, I largely agree. They're doing the right thing here. If people need this free thing, they'll be prompted to go get it. That's in the customer's best interest, and if they didn't do it, they'd catch hell over that, too. In fact, they HAVE been catching it for their security situation for the past decade or more.
Security should NOT be considered "separate" from the operating system. Not to be cliche, but ask any Linux admin....
While I do agree with the sentiment, I'm not aware of any Linux with kernel-level AV.
1) Keep an icon in the system tray indicating that "You Are Protected"
2) Stay out of your way and use very few system resources.
I dunno.... seems like there's something missing from this specification.
FYI, it once caught something that Symantec missed.
It isn't stellar, but it does work at least as well as the rest do.
That's not the point.
Can Picasso sue you or put you in jail for burning his painting after you paid him 10 million for it?
Microsoft say yes you can. Which I disagree with. That is the point.
Did you enter into an agreement with Picasso not to do so?
It isn't the art that matters, it is the terms at which it was transferred to you.
I'm not saying that Kinect has such a creature, because I genuinely do not know. But if it did, and you didn't opt out of it, you really should be bound by it.
And, again, I don't agree with the power these hold. I think there need to be more limits on what can be put in them. But currently, the sky is the limit, and we all know it.
"Apparently you have not read the EULA. If you had, you'd realize that you are actually leasing a rented license."
I certainly don't care about the EULA. They can say "we're just renting it to you" all they like, but it's still mine.
At the point where you learned of the conditions and did not immediately demand a refund, you agreed to them. I don't think the courts would look kindly on your agreeing to only the parts of the agreement you like.
Now, were you to claim that there was no agreement, that would be a completely different matter. But you're not saying that, are you?
Microsoft needs to understand that when they sell someone a piece of hardware, it is no longer Microsoft's to control outside of allowing it on their network or not.
Yes, please keep pointing this out to them until they realize they need to start licensing hardware to us. /sigh
Great enough of a country to have brought you the internet, your PC, your OS, and not the least of which, slashdot itself.
We're noteworthy. We can be proud of that. You can too, you know. No need to get all negative about a silly Hulu story.
...your politicians at least make an half-hearted attempt to protect your rights. Ours sold them at firesale prices to the content companies. So we're to either pay up or face insane fines and/or jail terms.
So we have a RIGHT to use someone else's content without their consent?
I can see having the right to copy something you paid for, but the right to just take for free whatever you wish doesn't seem to be a tenable position.
I have both, and in many ways HuluPlus is superior to Netflix. I'm probably overpaying by about half, and I do want them to take my dollars and reinvest them, but for the completely-TV-free household, we do appreciate having both.
Some examples:
Law and Order - Netflix has them all, and so does Plus. On Plus they'll play back-to-back-to-back. On Netflix you have to press play on each and every one. If you just want something on in the background while, say, playing WoW - go Hulu. If you're looking for one specific show, or just want one to play out while you go to bed (my wife does this, don't ask), then clearly, Netflix.
Simpsons - Netflix doesn't have it. Plus still only has five. So Hulu here, but not necessarily Plus. Family Guy, OTOH, has all 190-or-so episodes up there on Plus. And, as I said above, it will play them one after another until your brain oozes out your ears.
Movies - Plus is a joke. Forget about it. Netflix doesn't have as many as I'd like to see, but there are several good ones if you're willing to settle.
There are other examples as well, but the best experience is found in blending them both.
The whole point of watching TV online is to NOT pay for it.
Bzzzt. Wrong. The whole point of paying to watch TV online is not having to manage your own DVR. When you can get everything you want directly online without having to worry about cats and/or baseball games (or viruses, etc), why not plunk down a few extra dollars? Time saved is money earned.