The holocaust was mass murder. That is the crime of taking life. It is no more or less tragic because the life was taken due to racism.
The ironic thing about the holocaust is that those who get most upset about it tend to be the jews (who individually may or may not have been impacted). Its ironic because the jews as a group (there are of course exceptions) are the most racist group around. They believe their racism is dictated by God and give preference to others in business simply because they are jews and refuse to marry non-jews.
I do. They were in the UK but they published their information in the U.S. where they have the right to publish it. Just because they used the Internet and so its easy to 'import' that information back into the UK is beside the point.
This should have been U.S. jurisdiction just as it would have been if they had published the same material in book form here.
Well three, you also need a prosecutor. And two of the three have their job performance measured based on how many people they can find an excuse (valid or otherwise) to throw in jail. None of the three have any particular incentive to see actual justice done or to only jail the guilty. One great flaw of our system is that it assumes that the people involved have a moral conscience that will drive them to do the right thing and punish only the bad guys.
Agreed. A good example is the militia movement in the 90's. There was a very loud and oft repeated national call to violence as people were getting more and more upset with the government. But that doesn't mean everyone involved in those movements is guilty or wrong because Timothy McVey used it as an excuse to firebomb children in a civilian target.
In fact, ultimately inciting violence is fundamental to freedom of speech because its most basic purpose is to incite violence against corrupt government in the manner that our founders did. Whether your motivations in your call to arms are legitimate or illegitimate is beside the point everyone acts or does not act is responsible for their own actions, your right to say they should act is protected.
The problem goes beyond the success or failure of hate crime. The problem is the idea that the government should be taking a stance on issues like racism in the first place. It doesn't matter if I make decisions based on racism, fiscal views, political stances, etc. People are entitled to think as they will and justify what they do to themselves however they wish. All that matters is their actions and the results.
If CEO Y believes that minority A are lazy and don't work well then ultimately his company will fail compared with CEO X who believes that all races perform equally. Maybe not on a single example Y vs X example since there are other factors but over time a statistically significant sample will develop and prove itself. At which point CEO's who follow the money will win, regardless of which stance that is.
In the end valid views will produce results and invalid ones will not. It doesn't matter whether the view in question is racism or anything else. Equal opportunity laws are an example of things gone wrong. Baseball is an example of things allowed to unfold properly. In baseball, ultimately racism failed not because someone said they couldn't recruit based on race but because minorities demonstrated exceptional performance and proved racism invalid.
'I live in NY... and you'll hear lots of people saying they were proud to vote for a black man for President, but those same people moved when blacks started encroaching on their white neighborhoods, send their kids to mostly white private schools, etc.'
I'm sorry but that is not racism. They aren't moving because blacks are moving into their neighborhood they are moving because the culture that prevails in black neighborhoods is encroaching on their own. The same is true of the schools.
I'm sorry to all of those who want to call it the 'new racism' but opposing your children being influenced by a culture of rap/hip hop that romanticizes abuse of women, use of dangerous drugs like crack, gang violence, and the idea that people should be loud, rude, and obnoxious in their interaction with others is perfectly valid. The fact that people are afraid to express that idea openly and publicly without fear of being called racist is a sign that the public face of "white" america is diseased not their thoughts behind closed doors.
Why were people willing to elect Obama (your votes are still private not public actions like you seem to suggest)? They elected Obama because his race is irrelevant what is important is that he didn't show signs of being a part of that culture and because he doesn't speak ebonics (which is superficial but to anyone who didn't grow up speaking ebonics it simply sounds like the broken English of the uneducated).
A more realistic example would be a U.S. corporation conducting business in another country with different labor, safety, or tax laws. Just because the CEO didn't fly there doesn't mean the U.S. can punish the company for actions they committed in a country where those actions were legal. Or is it just that corporations have more rights than actual human beings now?
These guys published their writings in the U.S. where those writings were perfectly legal. It doesn't particularly matter if they were physically in the U.K. This is no different than if they published the same material in a paper book in the U.S.
If the U.K attacked them for actions that weren't committed in the U.K. then it seems to me that it is perfectly reasonable to go to the country where the acts are committed and insisted on being judged under the justice system there.
Additionally, this ruling seems bogus because my understanding is that in the United States our courts assume that we have primary jurisdiction in all matters.
In your world it costs $7 for a single burger at mcdonalds. In my world it costs $4 for 4 double cheeseburgers that will feed two adults and as for the drink... why would you buy the high profit items like fries and a drink? If you are out even an overpriced drink at a gas station is a better value than a fast food place and if you are taking it home drink something there. Drinks, side dishes, and appetizers these items are on the menu for the morons who don't value their money or somehow think Ronald is entitled to profits at their expense.
Do ant hills and bee hives cheat nature then? What obnoxious pricks some people are who think that we are somehow more or less a part of nature than any other dumb animal. Our tool usage, inventiveness, resource gathering and exploitation, sexuality, cruelty, and civilizations are all perfectly natural behavior for the critter we are.
We have not risen above nature through our intellect, such a thing is impossible by definition because our intellect is a natural faculty.
Because, a breakdown of actual revenue can likely be used to demonstrate that it is unlikely that any damage occurred at all from the alleged infringement. The use causing financial damages to the holder of the copyright is directly relevant to whether or not the use qualifies as fair use under copyright law.
Right now the RIAA wants to claim that filesharing hurts them really really bad. They claim it costs them billions of dollars and push for outrageous amounts per individual song infringed (which, even if you accept their numbers and divide it among the tens of millions of shared music copies would never reach even $5 a song let alone tens of thousands). Music is going to be destroyed by this heinous activity, etc, etc, etc. But they are raking in record level profits while every other industry is crashing. The last thing the RIAA wants is for you to see real numbers and details of the methods used to derive them because their numbers are cooked and may be made up entirely.
A single generation wouldn't really be a big deal. Its done with pot plants all the time. Unlike most plants marijuana has gender differentiation and plants are generally either male or female (although stress can induce male flowers in females this is the exception rather than the rule).
Since the only part of the plant that is useful for psychological effects by simply drying and smoking is the unpollenated flowers of a female plant a trick of growers is to use chemicals to induce male flowers in a stable female plant and then use the pollen to pollenate that plant (or a clone of that plant which amounts to the same thing). This yields seeds that will grow into all female plants and a genetic pool that is more or less the same as that the original plant came from with only a slight leaning toward the specific phenotype of the parent.
Do it a few generations though and you'll have to rename the strain to Alabama.
Yeah but the reason it was the general tactic is because killing the ants while giving you a warm fuzzy feeling inside doesn't do much of anything. You can't really kill them all or kill them off, its pretty much impossible.
Besides, it isn't as if there are any neighbors in Florida that aren't already owned by the ants anyway.
Silly Rabbit, so long as they all continue to speak Antinese they will get along just fine. It isn't along someone comes along speaking Antlish that problems crop up.
It seems more likely to me that our metrics for healthy weight are wrong. If a few pounds more increases lifespan than a few pounds more is what we need our charts to read as healthy weight.
I have to nitpick here. There is enough observed data and publicly available evidence to support most of the common Microsoft bashing at this point to say that a negative view of Microsoft would qualify as being beyond the hypothesis stage and well into the theory category at this point.
Really, with Australia's Internet and copyright policies and rapid move to make something like the innocent Korma tree (strong pain killer that satiates narcotic addicts but isn't a narcotic itself) illegal have led to me to believe that Australia is further down the wrong path than the U.S. already and the U.S. is already pretty far down the path.
What is the status on gun control there? Have they de-clawed and gelded the population there yet?
Slashdot Mirror
The holocaust was mass murder. That is the crime of taking life. It is no more or less tragic because the life was taken due to racism.
The ironic thing about the holocaust is that those who get most upset about it tend to be the jews (who individually may or may not have been impacted). Its ironic because the jews as a group (there are of course exceptions) are the most racist group around. They believe their racism is dictated by God and give preference to others in business simply because they are jews and refuse to marry non-jews.
I do. They were in the UK but they published their information in the U.S. where they have the right to publish it. Just because they used the Internet and so its easy to 'import' that information back into the UK is beside the point.
This should have been U.S. jurisdiction just as it would have been if they had published the same material in book form here.
Well three, you also need a prosecutor. And two of the three have their job performance measured based on how many people they can find an excuse (valid or otherwise) to throw in jail. None of the three have any particular incentive to see actual justice done or to only jail the guilty. One great flaw of our system is that it assumes that the people involved have a moral conscience that will drive them to do the right thing and punish only the bad guys.
Agreed. A good example is the militia movement in the 90's. There was a very loud and oft repeated national call to violence as people were getting more and more upset with the government. But that doesn't mean everyone involved in those movements is guilty or wrong because Timothy McVey used it as an excuse to firebomb children in a civilian target.
In fact, ultimately inciting violence is fundamental to freedom of speech because its most basic purpose is to incite violence against corrupt government in the manner that our founders did. Whether your motivations in your call to arms are legitimate or illegitimate is beside the point everyone acts or does not act is responsible for their own actions, your right to say they should act is protected.
The problem goes beyond the success or failure of hate crime. The problem is the idea that the government should be taking a stance on issues like racism in the first place. It doesn't matter if I make decisions based on racism, fiscal views, political stances, etc. People are entitled to think as they will and justify what they do to themselves however they wish. All that matters is their actions and the results.
If CEO Y believes that minority A are lazy and don't work well then ultimately his company will fail compared with CEO X who believes that all races perform equally. Maybe not on a single example Y vs X example since there are other factors but over time a statistically significant sample will develop and prove itself. At which point CEO's who follow the money will win, regardless of which stance that is.
In the end valid views will produce results and invalid ones will not. It doesn't matter whether the view in question is racism or anything else. Equal opportunity laws are an example of things gone wrong. Baseball is an example of things allowed to unfold properly. In baseball, ultimately racism failed not because someone said they couldn't recruit based on race but because minorities demonstrated exceptional performance and proved racism invalid.
'I live in NY... and you'll hear lots of people saying they were proud to vote for a black man for President, but those same people moved when blacks started encroaching on their white neighborhoods, send their kids to mostly white private schools, etc.'
I'm sorry but that is not racism. They aren't moving because blacks are moving into their neighborhood they are moving because the culture that prevails in black neighborhoods is encroaching on their own. The same is true of the schools.
I'm sorry to all of those who want to call it the 'new racism' but opposing your children being influenced by a culture of rap/hip hop that romanticizes abuse of women, use of dangerous drugs like crack, gang violence, and the idea that people should be loud, rude, and obnoxious in their interaction with others is perfectly valid. The fact that people are afraid to express that idea openly and publicly without fear of being called racist is a sign that the public face of "white" america is diseased not their thoughts behind closed doors.
Why were people willing to elect Obama (your votes are still private not public actions like you seem to suggest)? They elected Obama because his race is irrelevant what is important is that he didn't show signs of being a part of that culture and because he doesn't speak ebonics (which is superficial but to anyone who didn't grow up speaking ebonics it simply sounds like the broken English of the uneducated).
A more realistic example would be a U.S. corporation conducting business in another country with different labor, safety, or tax laws. Just because the CEO didn't fly there doesn't mean the U.S. can punish the company for actions they committed in a country where those actions were legal. Or is it just that corporations have more rights than actual human beings now?
These guys published their writings in the U.S. where those writings were perfectly legal. It doesn't particularly matter if they were physically in the U.K. This is no different than if they published the same material in a paper book in the U.S.
If the U.K attacked them for actions that weren't committed in the U.K. then it seems to me that it is perfectly reasonable to go to the country where the acts are committed and insisted on being judged under the justice system there.
Additionally, this ruling seems bogus because my understanding is that in the United States our courts assume that we have primary jurisdiction in all matters.
In your world it costs $7 for a single burger at mcdonalds. In my world it costs $4 for 4 double cheeseburgers that will feed two adults and as for the drink... why would you buy the high profit items like fries and a drink? If you are out even an overpriced drink at a gas station is a better value than a fast food place and if you are taking it home drink something there. Drinks, side dishes, and appetizers these items are on the menu for the morons who don't value their money or somehow think Ronald is entitled to profits at their expense.
Do ant hills and bee hives cheat nature then? What obnoxious pricks some people are who think that we are somehow more or less a part of nature than any other dumb animal. Our tool usage, inventiveness, resource gathering and exploitation, sexuality, cruelty, and civilizations are all perfectly natural behavior for the critter we are.
We have not risen above nature through our intellect, such a thing is impossible by definition because our intellect is a natural faculty.
CO2 is odorless... why would they have bad breath?
Because, a breakdown of actual revenue can likely be used to demonstrate that it is unlikely that any damage occurred at all from the alleged infringement. The use causing financial damages to the holder of the copyright is directly relevant to whether or not the use qualifies as fair use under copyright law.
Right now the RIAA wants to claim that filesharing hurts them really really bad. They claim it costs them billions of dollars and push for outrageous amounts per individual song infringed (which, even if you accept their numbers and divide it among the tens of millions of shared music copies would never reach even $5 a song let alone tens of thousands). Music is going to be destroyed by this heinous activity, etc, etc, etc. But they are raking in record level profits while every other industry is crashing. The last thing the RIAA wants is for you to see real numbers and details of the methods used to derive them because their numbers are cooked and may be made up entirely.
Our understanding of gene function if FAR too primitive to accurately assess the importance of those genes.
Besides, it seems fairly obvious that the logic, common sense, and notbepsycho genes are among them.
In all fairness inbreeding increases the likelihood of recessive traits developing whether those traits are positive or negative.
A single generation wouldn't really be a big deal. Its done with pot plants all the time. Unlike most plants marijuana has gender differentiation and plants are generally either male or female (although stress can induce male flowers in females this is the exception rather than the rule).
Since the only part of the plant that is useful for psychological effects by simply drying and smoking is the unpollenated flowers of a female plant a trick of growers is to use chemicals to induce male flowers in a stable female plant and then use the pollen to pollenate that plant (or a clone of that plant which amounts to the same thing). This yields seeds that will grow into all female plants and a genetic pool that is more or less the same as that the original plant came from with only a slight leaning toward the specific phenotype of the parent.
Do it a few generations though and you'll have to rename the strain to Alabama.
if your a guy, having a baby IS screwing yourself
shaitand@NOSPAMgmail.com
Yeah but the reason it was the general tactic is because killing the ants while giving you a warm fuzzy feeling inside doesn't do much of anything. You can't really kill them all or kill them off, its pretty much impossible.
Besides, it isn't as if there are any neighbors in Florida that aren't already owned by the ants anyway.
Could you hook me up with an invite code?
Silly Rabbit, so long as they all continue to speak Antinese they will get along just fine. It isn't along someone comes along speaking Antlish that problems crop up.
It seems more likely to me that our metrics for healthy weight are wrong. If a few pounds more increases lifespan than a few pounds more is what we need our charts to read as healthy weight.
Mono doesn't even run netflix so who cares?
/agree
I am biased toward gravity as well. I probably have more support for my negative bias toward Microsoft than I have support for my belief in gravity.
I have to nitpick here. There is enough observed data and publicly available evidence to support most of the common Microsoft bashing at this point to say that a negative view of Microsoft would qualify as being beyond the hypothesis stage and well into the theory category at this point.
Really, with Australia's Internet and copyright policies and rapid move to make something like the innocent Korma tree (strong pain killer that satiates narcotic addicts but isn't a narcotic itself) illegal have led to me to believe that Australia is further down the wrong path than the U.S. already and the U.S. is already pretty far down the path.
What is the status on gun control there? Have they de-clawed and gelded the population there yet?