It's a much different Universe than one in which the Earth is the only habitable spot, in the very special position of "center".
Why do you think there is a center to the universe. There may be center of mass; But I do not believe there is a center, as in order to be defined there must be an edge to the universe, such that moving off the edge will take you out of the universe. It is either infinite, or it posesses the topological property of looping back on its self(like a the surface of torus or a sphere).
Your logic isn't even self consistant. Disproving a theory is the same as proving the theory that the 1st theory is false. Thus if in general theories cannot be proven, the cannot be disproven either.
As is science. Who is to say what you observe is what happens? How do you know any scientific theory is correct. They are based on assumptions, especially the assumption that what you observe is correct. For instance you can't prove the universe wasn't created 5 minutes ago, complete with memories, fossils, erc. And before you bring up Occam's Razor remember their is no reason at all to believe the simplest theory is more correct, with out assuming it to begin with, based on faith.
BTW Do you really believe everything can be explained by reason?
If you are going to try applying quantum mechanics on such a large scale, and say that they are guilty of murder because of that, I may as well too. Have you ever driven? Did your car's wave function extend into the region where another car should be(if you say no you're either a liar or you didn't know how fast you were going, and by your logic are guilty of speeding.) If so there is the ppossibility that you just killed someone in that car, and thus you are guilty of manslaughter.
yes, but would they lose an amount equal to the cost of 20% of the worlds digital media? They will profit from this, possibly even without any CD sales.
But, more to the point, I'd rather watch you try to explain why the government taking away less of my hard earned money counts, in your view, as `spending' on their part.
It doesn't; that's just a strawman argument you made in your previous post. S0pending is not neccessarily equal to the amount of taxes. What counts as more spending is the fact the government is using more money than it was before the Bush administration. If that isn't more spending, then what is?
Increasing spending without increasing taxes leads to a deficit. A deficit causes inflation. To see this remember that when nothing is produced, the economy is at best a zero-sum game, for example I can't give you some money in exchange for your money, with us both coming out ahead. In this case the government is spending more money, thus some group of people must come out behind. Since they aren't bringing in as much money in tax revenue, this lowers the value of money. You come out about as rich as if you were taxed directly; you have more money, but you can't afford anything more. The deficit eventually must be paid off, and taxes will increase more than they would have if the money was just taxed, and deflation also results, which brings money to a bit less than the original value(but still more than immediately before the deflation).
In the long run you will be paying more taxes(on average), and dealing with an unstable economy.
Bush's policies have made this country safer. How many attacks have occurred in this country since 9/11? what was that? Could you repeat that for the jury? NONE. Exactly
9/11 was about two years ago. How many terrorist attacks have occured in this country the previous two years?
Are weapons of mass destruction really a reason to go to war? By your logic we should go to war with India, Pakistan, North Korea, The United States, and several other countries. In fact the United States is the only country that has used all three types of WMDs, and North Korea has made threats against us. We have proof that these other countries have weapons of mass destruction, but no proof that Iraq has them.
There is also doubt as to whether he had WMDs. The article you linked to states: Almost everything we knew about Saddam's weapons programs and stockpiles, we knew because the Iraqis themselves admitted it. So we believe anything they say unless they say they destroyed their WMDs? How do we know they didn't exagerate the numbers of WMDS to appear more dangerous? Once we attacked, and Saddam knew we wanted to depose him, why didn't he use the WMDs? He had nothing to lose by doing so. Why would he build WMDs, and not use them, even defensively? Are they meant only as decorations?
Slashdot Mirror
No its government for the people, by the people and of the people. You got the order a little mixed up.
Why do you think there is a center to the universe. There may be center of mass; But I do not believe there is a center, as in order to be defined there must be an edge to the universe, such that moving off the edge will take you out of the universe. It is either infinite, or it posesses the topological property of looping back on its self(like a the surface of torus or a sphere).
Your logic isn't even self consistant. Disproving a theory is the same as proving the theory that the 1st theory is false. Thus if in general theories cannot be proven, the cannot be disproven either.
Yes he does; He's the DM.
Also even with such principle rational thought cannot prove everything. This is known as Godels incompleteness Theorem.
As is science. Who is to say what you observe is what happens? How do you know any scientific theory is correct. They are based on assumptions, especially the assumption that what you observe is correct. For instance you can't prove the universe wasn't created 5 minutes ago, complete with memories, fossils, erc. And before you bring up Occam's Razor remember their is no reason at all to believe the simplest theory is more correct, with out assuming it to begin with, based on faith.
BTW Do you really believe everything can be explained by reason?
If you are going to try applying quantum mechanics on such a large scale, and say that they are guilty of murder because of that, I may as well too. Have you ever driven? Did your car's wave function extend into the region where another car should be(if you say no you're either a liar or you didn't know how fast you were going, and by your logic are guilty of speeding.) If so there is the ppossibility that you just killed someone in that car, and thus you are guilty of manslaughter.
Thats why hes prolife, he doesn't want to be aborted just because hes not sentinent
this analysis was of their outgoing bandwidth, ie. the responses
yes, but would they lose an amount equal to the cost of 20% of the worlds digital media? They will profit from this, possibly even without any CD sales.
It doesn't; that's just a strawman argument you made in your previous post. S0pending is not neccessarily equal to the amount of taxes. What counts as more spending is the fact the government is using more money than it was before the Bush administration. If that isn't more spending, then what is?
Increasing spending without increasing taxes leads to a deficit. A deficit causes inflation. To see this remember that when nothing is produced, the economy is at best a zero-sum game, for example I can't give you some money in exchange for your money, with us both coming out ahead. In this case the government is spending more money, thus some group of people must come out behind. Since they aren't bringing in as much money in tax revenue, this lowers the value of money. You come out about as rich as if you were taxed directly; you have more money, but you can't afford anything more. The deficit eventually must be paid off, and taxes will increase more than they would have if the money was just taxed, and deflation also results, which brings money to a bit less than the original value(but still more than immediately before the deflation).
In the long run you will be paying more taxes(on average), and dealing with an unstable economy.
9/11 was about two years ago. How many terrorist attacks have occured in this country the previous two years?
That depends, how much do you contribute to campaigns?
If they were just trade secrets, people could reverse engineer them.
rfc-3514 was meant to address this very problem
He is rather liberal, anywhere else in the country people would expect him to be a Democrat based on his views.
Also you forgot to mention they want to give drivers licenses to illegal immigrants.
If the inventions were from NASA who else would hold the patents?
Point taken
They actually flip out and kill pirates
It's easy; Find the gene that makes people be geeks, and put it in the animal/plant. Then no other member of the species will want to breed with it.
Except that with electronic voting one compromise will allow you to change the vote count to whatever you want.
And the expense of whoever the next 'First Idiot' decides to declare war on.
I agree with you, however they are increasing spending so cutting taxes is a bad idea.
The government cannot hold patents.
There is also doubt as to whether he had WMDs. The article you linked to states:
Almost everything we knew about Saddam's weapons programs and stockpiles, we knew because the Iraqis themselves admitted it.
So we believe anything they say unless they say they destroyed their WMDs? How do we know they didn't exagerate the numbers of WMDS to appear more dangerous? Once we attacked, and Saddam knew we wanted to depose him, why didn't he use the WMDs? He had nothing to lose by doing so. Why would he build WMDs, and not use them, even defensively? Are they meant only as decorations?