Yes there must be consequences for his actions. But YEARS in jail? This kid isn't really a "threat" to society or someone who needs to be, what's the word they like to use now? - rehabilitated... It's just a dumb kid who needs to be taught a lesson. 38 years, or 10, or even 1 will probably break him and ensure that society gains yet another underachieving, useless supermarket bagger (if that). I couldn't really care less about him adjusting his own grades per se. Where he's affecting society is that if he hadn't been caught he could well have ruined several other peoples lives - either winning scholarships which others deserved or by adjusting down the grades of those who now wouldn't get the education and life path they worked hard for.
Jail time sounds about right, but not more than a year and provided he gets to continue study inside.
That sounds like the response of an intelligent person. Or perhaps the _defence_ of a very intelligent person who is already learning to be a criminal mastermind (either posting from prison or influencing those on the outside to do it for him).
[...] in some ways the free version is superior to the pay versions as they stand now: instant gratification (as compared to amazon), easier storage (as compared to a DVD), more flexible playback (as compared to iTunes), etc. [...] You can buy the DVD to pay for the right to watch the movie, then download it. Seems completely legit to me, may not be legal but it's certainly morally right and you get the benefits you thought you were losing.
How much is a judge going to award against you when you show that for those 10's of movies on your hard drives you have DVDs telling you your licensed to view the contents?
YMMV, the law isn't this logical, IA-most-definitely-NAL
Thanks. I guess that's the problem with homophones when you learn them from audio sources rather than text.
The meaning then of "open to debate" (moot) is not really what I intended, more of "your point does not then speak, it's obviated" which could colloquially at least be "your point is mute".
You're assuming a 'correct' philosophical point that it is correct to tolerate homosexual acts. Bear with me this gets a bit messy.
If you assume the opposite then the original intolerance is that of those who are for homosexual acts. Then the position of the BSA is intolerance of the intolerant and the OP is the intolerant.
Now most everyone who is not religious is post-modernist and denies an absolute morality. So following your logic and making the assumption of subjective morality neither position is stronger.
FWIW.
On the point of intolerance of murderers. I try to be intolerant of murder, but not of murderers. Jesus Christ (as portrayed in the gospels) stopped the crowd from stoning a woman (intolerance of adulterers) but told her to "sin no more" (intolerance of adultery). It's an important distinction.
imprisoned for a month and ten days, [...] no legal right to be told why and a scant chance of limited compensation. Can you imagine the effect on your family, your job, your reputation? This allows the state to destroy individuals with only limited checks and balances. The previous 28 day period has only been approached on 2 occassions both of which led to prosecutions.
I'm not au fait with the law here but surely it's common with arrest for anything else "I'm arresting you under the Terrorism Act 2006 you do not have to say anything...". You are not being charged, but you damn well know why you're being arrested.
In addition the BBC reports that under the current amendment "each suspect will be able to challenge any application to hold them beyond 28 days in front of a judge".
Got a decent reference? Seriously, that link is to the 'Daily Mail', the sensationalism in that paper is renowned. Even its founder (Lord Northcliffe) said its winning formula is to give readers: 'a daily hate'. This is the same paper that pays foreign people to break the law, so they can report about how East Europeans are 'destroying Britain'. I'm kinda inclined to believe this one, from the linked article (I know I'm not _supposed_ to read it...):
It was revealed he has been awarded £252,500 compensation for his lost years - but minus the estimated cost of his food and accommodation while behind bars. So basically some fudge was made, he was really awarded £240,000 compensation; they stuck on £12.5k and then took it off as B&B. It seems a strange and offensive way to do things but I can't really see it as anything more than a financial fudge.
However, if I were that man I'd probably be spending half that £240k to get the £12.5k back!
This report (http://news.bbc.co.uk/nolpda/ukfs_news/hi/newsid_6702000/6702519.stm) from the BBC seems a bit more level headed:
The Ministry of Justice said in a statement: "It's wrong to refer to the deductions as 'bed and breakfast' as they are made in respect of the costs an individual would have had to pay out of their net income on things such as a mortgage or rent.
"The purpose of the compensation is to put an individual back into the financial position they would have been in but for the miscarriage of justice, but not to a better position."
Wouldn't it be bit of a double standard if they won't allow atheists and homosexuals to join, but will gladly accept free labor from them? ... is it a double standard that I think my homosexual friend is sinning by being homosexual (yes he knows) but I let him buy me a drink in the pub?
Wouldn't it be a double standard to decry bigotry in Christians and yet take a bigoted stance?
Every time you try to stop someone smuggling drugs on a flight the terrorists have won?
To imagine body scanners only purpose is to capture terror activists with political agendas ("terrorists") is nutty. How many random shootings do you guys have in the US? You want gang members to pwn an airline route or the guy from "Falling Down" to decide death on an airliner is the way to go.
Yes people are more likely to die of prostrate cancer than die in a gas explosion, but I still think it's worthwhile to try and prevent gas explosions by having a building code and gas shut-off valves in houses.
Their explanation is a physics explanation though. Yes if it's non-falsifiable then it wouldn't be a scientific explanation (but what is currently not falsifiable may prove to be in the future) but even so I still think it bears examination for consistency and it's ability to make predictions (even if a contestable axiom must be used first; something like a fixed speed of light in a vacuum, say).
So perhaps they should call themselves natural philosophers (perhaps they're Oxbridge grads?) but nonetheless, whilst I don't buy it based on this report, they _may_ still be doing some worthwhile physics...
What actually is the problem with being stopped and asked who you are?
Sure if it's more than a couple of times in a day it would be a bit tedious. I tell just about every shop I buy things from, not only who I am, but also how much money I've spent there, how often I visit, what I like to wear/eat/listen to. The larger companies can trade those details to enhance their profile of me so they also know about my other spending habits.
If you go ultra capitalist and just consider government as a provider of services in return for taxes then they are being no more intrusive than most businesses.
Unless you use cash everywhere. Then it's only your bank that knows about your financial affairs (where you work/live, how much you earn, how much you spend).
I have more faith in our "representative" democracy (UK) than in nearly any business that I frequent (saving the local food co-op).
Perhaps it's coming from a village as a child (everyone, including the local policeman knows everyone else) but I really don't understand the desire to be anonymous _in_this_way.
By definition the Big Bang is the singular point at which spacetime was created ex-nihilo. Thus to talk of a time before the Big Bang is wrong.
What they mean is a time before the point in time at which proponents of Big Bang theory consider a singularity to have existed... I guess that may be a bit of a mouthful.
Incidentally the report of having form at it's start is rather reminiscent of running start theory popular in ID, or possibly creatio-ex-materia.
First, they (should) ask do the "ordinary" physical laws explain the fluctuations? Next, if they have shown that _none_ of the physical laws _can_ explain the fluctuations [...] I've never felt Occam's razor to be that fundamental. If they find an alternative description that fits just as well, even if it makes no more advanced predictions (later to be proven) then it's still valid work. It shows alternate descriptions are possible. This alternate description may later prove to be of worth - whether in describing the facet of reality that it was directed to or in aiding in some other area.
The "physical laws" are not preeminent except in as far as they are consistent internally and as close as possible with reality. Any such laws that fit are equally true.
someone actually saying "We have found evidence to suggest this is true." I think that's a bit strong. They've found a way to fudge the theory to be consistent with the CMB. That's a long way from evidence and the reverse of suggestion, IMHO.
Interestingly if they've found evidence of something from before the Big Bang then our entire notion of spacetime having being created at that point are mute, it's not a Big Bang, perhaps a Cosmic Strangulated Hernia?. This then is the biggest news in physics since, well, since forever. To have then described something of the nature of that preexisting universe... it will be interesting to see what the peer reviewers make of it.
[Article on a pre-review paper:] Professor Carroll urged cosmologists to broaden their horizons: "We're trained to say there was no time before the Big Bang, when we should say that we don't know whether there was anything - or if there was, what it was." Apart from the obvious internal contradiction of using the term "Big Bang" which by definition has no "time before" then I say amen to that!
Libraries still buy it and students too Which students can afford to buy Enc.Brit and why would they when you can read it at the library for free?
At uni we're specifically told NOT to research using Wikipedia, mostly because a lot of students don't know how to check what's been changed recently and what 'facts' are actually crap. Perhaps they should try educating you as to what is regarded as plagiarising wikipedia and what is research? Moreover, are you really taught to just trust a book because it's printed (or perhaps because it costs a lot)?
To my mind wikipedia is great in that you can often see the thoughts of different factions battling for supremacy. Many of the pages I've viewed do provide good citations.
Recently, there was that article on Slashdot about cold fusion. Turned out to be very under tested and probably a load of crap, but peer review saw that it was big news. I'd hardly call a/. moderation on cold-fusion "peer review". Slashdot aims to find important _OR_ interesting news (not XOR incidentally), even if it's crackpot then it can still be interesting.
Some guy claims to have made an anti-gravity machine with a cat and some buttered toast? That's still news for nerds!
But even with these flaws, the process does a pretty good job at rejecting junk; [...] for humanity to reliably accumulate knowledge, we need a mechanism that rejects almost all obvious junk, and the scientific journals are the ones who are still doing a pretty good job of that. [...] If another *good* peer review mechanism appears, it could supplant journals, but none have yet. None of your arguments are for journals however. They are for proper peer review. With an online process, reviewed and rejected articles can be published (with reasoning if you like). This adds to the wealth of knowledge.
If I'm planning to do an experiment it helps to know that others have tried and failed to provide a verifiable result or that certain methodologies are seen to be flawed. We learn by our mistakes and our successes, if we can also learn by others mistakes then we can surely accelerate towards greater understanding?
I'd like to see a government science program wherein the results (by which I mean papers, studies, raw data, etc.) of all government sponsored science goes into an open online peer-reviewed repository. Unreviewed works and works in progress could be added in, updates could even be made in light of new theories or experiments.
Slashdot Mirror
Mod parent up as he pwnz u with his masterful commenting and provides indelible evidence of nazi high school administrators.
!
Jail time sounds about right, but not more than a year and provided he gets to continue study inside.
That sounds like the response of an intelligent person. Or perhaps the _defence_ of a very intelligent person who is already learning to be a criminal mastermind (either posting from prison or influencing those on the outside to do it for him).
?
Stamp on you?
How much is a judge going to award against you when you show that for those 10's of movies on your hard drives you have DVDs telling you your licensed to view the contents?
YMMV, the law isn't this logical, IA-most-definitely-NAL
Thanks. I guess that's the problem with homophones when you learn them from audio sources rather than text.
The meaning then of "open to debate" (moot) is not really what I intended, more of "your point does not then speak, it's obviated" which could colloquially at least be "your point is mute".
I'll avoid both phrases I think.
You're assuming a 'correct' philosophical point that it is correct to tolerate homosexual acts. Bear with me this gets a bit messy.
If you assume the opposite then the original intolerance is that of those who are for homosexual acts. Then the position of the BSA is intolerance of the intolerant and the OP is the intolerant.
Now most everyone who is not religious is post-modernist and denies an absolute morality. So following your logic and making the assumption of subjective morality neither position is stronger.
FWIW.
On the point of intolerance of murderers. I try to be intolerant of murder, but not of murderers. Jesus Christ (as portrayed in the gospels) stopped the crowd from stoning a woman (intolerance of adulterers) but told her to "sin no more" (intolerance of adultery). It's an important distinction.
I'm not au fait with the law here but surely it's common with arrest for anything else "I'm arresting you under the Terrorism Act 2006 you do not have to say anything
In addition the BBC reports that under the current amendment "each suspect will be able to challenge any application to hold them beyond 28 days in front of a judge".
I don't think anyone is going to fail to be re-elected for voting for this.
However, if I were that man I'd probably be spending half that £240k to get the £12.5k back!
This report (http://news.bbc.co.uk/nolpda/ukfs_news/hi/newsid_6702000/6702519.stm) from the BBC seems a bit more level headed: The Ministry of Justice said in a statement: "It's wrong to refer to the deductions as 'bed and breakfast' as they are made in respect of the costs an individual would have had to pay out of their net income on things such as a mortgage or rent.
"The purpose of the compensation is to put an individual back into the financial position they would have been in but for the miscarriage of justice, but not to a better position."
Wouldn't it be a double standard to decry bigotry in Christians and yet take a bigoted stance?
You refuse to suffer the beliefs of those who consider sex outside of marriage wrong and who believe in a singular God.
That too is bigotry.
Every time you try to stop someone smuggling drugs on a flight the terrorists have won?
To imagine body scanners only purpose is to capture terror activists with political agendas ("terrorists") is nutty. How many random shootings do you guys have in the US? You want gang members to pwn an airline route or the guy from "Falling Down" to decide death on an airliner is the way to go.
Yes people are more likely to die of prostrate cancer than die in a gas explosion, but I still think it's worthwhile to try and prevent gas explosions by having a building code and gas shut-off valves in houses.
Could you explain?
Their explanation is a physics explanation though. Yes if it's non-falsifiable then it wouldn't be a scientific explanation (but what is currently not falsifiable may prove to be in the future) but even so I still think it bears examination for consistency and it's ability to make predictions (even if a contestable axiom must be used first; something like a fixed speed of light in a vacuum, say).
...
So perhaps they should call themselves natural philosophers (perhaps they're Oxbridge grads?) but nonetheless, whilst I don't buy it based on this report, they _may_ still be doing some worthwhile physics
Suppose you stand at the edge of the universe. You reach out your arm, if you can reach it out, there is space to reach in to, you're not at the edge.
Suppose instead your arm hits a boundary, you are not at the edge, there is a boundary beyond.
Conclusion, the universe extends [infinitely].
---
i don't buy this particular, incidentally
I promise I'm not flaming.
What actually is the problem with being stopped and asked who you are?
Sure if it's more than a couple of times in a day it would be a bit tedious. I tell just about every shop I buy things from, not only who I am, but also how much money I've spent there, how often I visit, what I like to wear/eat/listen to. The larger companies can trade those details to enhance their profile of me so they also know about my other spending habits.
If you go ultra capitalist and just consider government as a provider of services in return for taxes then they are being no more intrusive than most businesses.
Unless you use cash everywhere. Then it's only your bank that knows about your financial affairs (where you work/live, how much you earn, how much you spend).
I have more faith in our "representative" democracy (UK) than in nearly any business that I frequent (saving the local food co-op).
Perhaps it's coming from a village as a child (everyone, including the local policeman knows everyone else) but I really don't understand the desire to be anonymous _in_this_way.
By definition the Big Bang is the singular point at which spacetime was created ex-nihilo. Thus to talk of a time before the Big Bang is wrong.
... I guess that may be a bit of a mouthful.
What they mean is a time before the point in time at which proponents of Big Bang theory consider a singularity to have existed
Incidentally the report of having form at it's start is rather reminiscent of running start theory popular in ID, or possibly creatio-ex-materia.
The "physical laws" are not preeminent except in as far as they are consistent internally and as close as possible with reality. Any such laws that fit are equally true.
Interestingly if they've found evidence of something from before the Big Bang then our entire notion of spacetime having being created at that point are mute, it's not a Big Bang, perhaps a Cosmic Strangulated Hernia?. This then is the biggest news in physics since, well, since forever. To have then described something of the nature of that preexisting universe
To my mind wikipedia is great in that you can often see the thoughts of different factions battling for supremacy. Many of the pages I've viewed do provide good citations.
I'd cite something from http://scx.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/16/3/304 but I can't afford to read it
Some guy claims to have made an anti-gravity machine with a cat and some buttered toast? That's still news for nerds!
But even with these flaws, the process does a pretty good job at rejecting junk; [...] for humanity to reliably accumulate knowledge, we need a mechanism that rejects almost all obvious junk, and the scientific journals are the ones who are still doing a pretty good job of that.
[...] If another *good* peer review mechanism appears, it could supplant journals, but none have yet. None of your arguments are for journals however. They are for proper peer review. With an online process, reviewed and rejected articles can be published (with reasoning if you like). This adds to the wealth of knowledge.
If I'm planning to do an experiment it helps to know that others have tried and failed to provide a verifiable result or that certain methodologies are seen to be flawed. We learn by our mistakes and our successes, if we can also learn by others mistakes then we can surely accelerate towards greater understanding?
I'd like to see a government science program wherein the results (by which I mean papers, studies, raw data, etc.) of all government sponsored science goes into an open online peer-reviewed repository. Unreviewed works and works in progress could be added in, updates could even be made in light of new theories or experiments.
I thought it was quite a marketing-y name. Dev's might call it yetAnotherTextEntryFieldForPastDomain AndMetaDataSearchInstantiation or something ...
No sorry that's not a clever acronym.