Re:Some Interesting New Products...
on
Powered by Blood
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Because he can fit a lot of it in his stomach, due to its density. I don't like potato salad, but I know that eating pasta or meatloaf until your stomach is full feels a lot more filling than say, crescent rolls.
And no I'm not fat. According to this my bmi is 18.8.
And PGAL, RuBP, and the krebs cycle. Yes I feel your pain. Except I'd be willing to bet 5 dollars my biology class was much much more tedious and patronizing than yours.
"OK boys and girls, polymers are like these legos stuck together, and monomers are like the blocks!"
*click* *click* *click* of plastic....
We spent months on punnett squares, really. An entire academic quarter.
Thank you for that pointless comment. You have taken usefull energy and turned it into a slashdot comment, thereby bringing the universe closer to heat death.
yes, they used to do that at my old school, only with ti-82's and ti-83's. They also let students borrow those same calculators for classwork if they happened to forget theirs or their batteries died. Needless to say, many of those school calculators had simple trig programs written in tibasic on them, as well as cool games like tetris.
I've wondered why Missouri has that stupid nickname for a while, but always forget about it by the time I'm somewhere to look it up. You reminded me again and I found where it came from. Apparently it came from an 1899 speech given by Missouri congressman Willard D. Vandiver in Philadelphia:
"I come from a country that raises corn, cotton, cockleburs, and Democrats. I'm from Missouri, and you've got to show me."
I guess Show-me state would be better than the Canoe-posessor state, or the Where-I-go-to-buy-bottle-rockets state.
Me, I'm from the cornhusker state, see, because we grow corn here. Clever huh? At least you guys have a cool state coin, ours will probably have Chimney Rock and Fred Astaire on it.
Yes, there is a difference between basic rights and derived rights. Whether or not I have the right to freely make copies of a piece of software and distribute them to friends is a derived from property rights. With the right to property comes the right to engage in business, licensing and contracts. One of the government's jobs is to protect property rights by protecting people from fraud and theft.
Maybe I have some special rights as a shareholder of a company, or as an employee, but these again are just derived from property rights, which are protected by the government.
Government can only take away or protect our rights; they cannot give us anymore.
The right to drive a car is not a basic right, but it is a derived one. It is derived from the rights to liberty and property, and should not be taken away unless one's use of a car violate the rights of others.
The government does not really give you the right to drive a car. You already have that right. If there were no government, there would be nothing to stop you from driving a car, save individuals and corporations. Government protects your right to drive a car from those individuals and corporations that could try to prevent it with force.
Besides the phrasing, I don't see what is American-Centric about my definition of basic human rights, especially considering that the ideas originally came from chiefly European philosophers, and considering the incredible prevalence of violations of those rights by the US government, and how much the American people are willing to disregard them. Even about eighty years after our government was founded, we still practiced slavery, possibly the worst kind of violation of human rights there is.
I would be interested in hearing what you see as the basic rights of mankind.
Re:What about sweaty fingers?
on
Clammy Modding
·
· Score: 0, Troll
Well that's the same thing I do, except you have your palm suspended over the mouse(and it doesn't get sweaty that way I suppose) whereas my palm is touching. It's the same amount of wrist movement whether your palm is touching the mouse or whether only your fingers are, for me anyway. I rest my entire palm on the mouse and still only move my wrist around.
The original poster said something about using "just [his] fingers so that only [his] wrist has to move around rather than [his] entire arm"
As far as I can tell, it would be the same kind of movement, just your palm wouldn't get sweaty. I don't see why resting your palm on the mouse would preclude use of your wrist and force you to move your arm.
Maybe I'm just strange and/or dense.
Re:What about sweaty fingers?
on
Clammy Modding
·
· Score: 1
Umm, I rest my entire palm on the mouse, and I can still move my wrist without moving my arm.... I'm afraid I don't understand what you're getting at.
You're a little confused, and that's fine because you probably have no reason to be that familiar with early American history. Most Americans wouldn't know what I'm going to tell you either. Let me try to straighten you out on a couple points.
The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document of any kind. We can't go to court and say our rights were violated in a way similar to the way in which King George III violated the rights of the colonists.
Our "legal rights" are laid out in our Constitution, in the part called the Bill of Rights. The preamble to the Constitution is not really legal either. We can't go to court and try to argue that the government is not doing it's job of "creating a more perfect union." The Preamble is just a kind of "introduction." It explains why the constitution is being written, and some of the philosophy behind it.
I've tried to explain, this philosophy is just philosophy. You can't say that the statements made in our Declaration are purely American and can't be applied to the other nations of the world. They are not American statements, but human statements.
A side note, actually our government and our revolution WAS something that many countries of the world have looked to as an example, and have modeled their governments after. And the writings that influenced our forefathers, as well as later American writings, like Paine's Common Sense and Thoreau's Civil Disobediance HAVE been something the world has looked to to help define human rights. I'm not saying either that America TODAY is all that great of a model, but it was an excelent one when it started.
I think that this conversation has gone on long enough that I've figured out the core issue of our discussion, the difference in philosophy, and you can correct me if I'm wrong. Here are, as well as I can tell, the possibilities:
1. Man has rights. He has the same rights whether he is a wheat farmer, forced to hand over his crop to Stalin, in exchange for almost enough bread, or a hermit who hunts his own food, lives in a house he built with his hands, and has managed to avoid any interaction with any other human for the last 12 years. Government's job is to define an implementation of those rights in a legal way, and protect them.
A. These rights include life, liberty, property and self-determination. Revolution is a corollary of self-determination.(This is my view and the view of the philosophers of the age of enlightenment.)
B. Man has inalienable rights, endowed by the Creator, but they aren't the same as what is laid out in 1A. 2. Man's rights are those that are defined by the government. If the government says he has a right to liberty, then he does. And if they say he has to hand over his property to the government, or that he doesn't have the right to be on the street after midnight, or that he has to go to the polling center today and place a piece of paper, blank or not, in a box, then that's the way it should be.
I suspect that you are of the view of 1b, and you just disagree with my views on liberty, but still hold that man has certain unalienable rights. You may also be of view 2, I'm not sure. Either way, I think that there is a philosophical difference, that cannot really be resolved with further discussion. We've come down to a matter of pure opinion.
Since the Australian people have agreed to let their personal liberty be compromised, and have made this violation law, then yes, the government has a duty then to compell it's citizens to vote. The Australian people have a right to give up their liberty. Self-determination is important. Do not misunderstand me though.
While the government has a duty to do this, it does not make it right. During World War II, in the United States, mass numbers of Japanese Americans were held in internment camps for supposed protection against espionage. The gaurds certainly had a government-sanctioned duty to keep them there, but this does not change the fact that those citizens' personal liberty was violated. There may not have been a vote that put those Americans there, like there was that put Australians in voting centers on election days, but there was no vote to halt their internment, so their liberty was still removed by a democratic majority process.
First of all, the bill of rights is part of the constitution. And no, the philosophies behind the documents that are the basis of our government and key points in our history are not the philosophies of the American people. They are just philosophies.
As to why the American people tout the Declaration and the Constitution, well, they don't. I doubt the average American could identify the Preamble to the Constitution for a hundred dollars.
You seem to have a problem with reading comprehension. I never said that Australia is subject the the US Constitution.
You also apparently missed "Of COURSE, self-determination is one of the most important principles of civilization. The Australian people have the right to have whatever kind of government they wish, even one that takes away rights that I would consider to be fundamental."
The ideas set forth on the works of John Locke and William Gladstone; in the US Constitution and Declaration of Independence, are just ideas. To say they are the values of the American people, or to say that they are values of the American government is ignorant and nonsensical. To try to say that the idea of liberty is something unique to some country or not relevant to another is deeply asinine.
Please reread the thread. If you'll notice, I first expressed my own ideas, and then after my ideas themselves were received as if they were as foreign as a Martian on Venus, I pointed out that they were not new ideas by any stretch, and could be found many other places.
Wow a choice! Gee a CHOICE of what to do after a violation of personal liberty mandates you be somewhere at a certain time, despite not having violated the personal rights of others!
And yes, I am saying that the philosophy behind mandatory voting shares much with the philosophies behind various fascist, socialist, authoritarian and monarchistic systems.
Though I support taxation, my take on it is almost backwards, in a sense, to yours. Taxation is not a duty of the people. The people have no "duty" to their government. The government has a duty to them.
The people, by their own consent, choose to create an entity for their own protection from threats foreign and domestic, etc. You see, the payment of taxes is by their own consent. No one can claim by his own authority, a right to the property of others.
This raises the issue then, how can taxes be imposed then on the minority of people who do not support them?
My answer is that participation in society should be voluntary, however for all practical purposes it is quite difficult to try to find somewhere to live under no governmental rule.
There is no society that is structured according to my ideals.
I heard this great idea for a game you might be interested in:
"You have a mat, and it's got some conclusions written on it, and you back up next to the mat, and think about a question, and then you jump to a conclusion. Right there on the mat, you jump to a conclusion..."
Pay attention. By choosing to violate the rights of others, you give up claims on your own and are thereby subject to restrictions on liberty and the criminal justice system. See my other posts in this thread.
I'm not one of those jackasses that prefaces his statements with "In my personal opinion..."
Of COURSE, self-determination is one of the most important principles of civilization. The Australian people have the right to have whatever kind of government they wish, even one that takes away rights that I would consider to be fundamental.
As to "Where do you pull this from?" Well, it really doesn't matter. An opinion is an opinion, I did not make a statement of fact, and therefore I don't have to justify it. However, since you seem to think that what I've expressed is some kind of new idea you've never heard of before, I'll try to point you to places where similar sentiments can be found.
First, from dictionary.com, one of the definitions of "liberty":
"The condition of being physically and legally free from confinement, servitude, or forced labor. See Synonyms at freedom."
From the American Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness..."
From the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States:
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union,
establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves..."
Those Constitution and Declaration were written under much influence of Locke and Blackstone. Contemporaries who feel much the same can be found in the Libertatian Party and among the followers of Ayn Rand's Objectivism.
Whether or not individuals have a duty to protect others is a religious/ethical issue and it certainly should not be mandated by the state. If you want to talk about requiring things of your subjects for the common good of all, then you're talking about communism. If they can require you to go to the polls on a certain day, then they can require you to spend a couple days cleaning up a floodzone, or maybe a couple months of filing papers for Big Brother...
You hit the nail on the head. No one cares if there are serious problems with online voting for their politicians, but do you know how many people would be crying foul if there lwere a problem with this?
The duty of the government is to protect the rights and well-being of it's citizens. I do not believe I should be compelled to be anywhere or compelled to NOT be somewhere unless I have violated the rights of others. YES, I DO mean that I do not believe in the draft or in the way in the way the Jury duty is set up either.
Slashdot Mirror
Because he can fit a lot of it in his stomach, due to its density. I don't like potato salad, but I know that eating pasta or meatloaf until your stomach is full feels a lot more filling than say, crescent rolls. And no I'm not fat. According to this my bmi is 18.8.
And PGAL, RuBP, and the krebs cycle. Yes I feel your pain. Except I'd be willing to bet 5 dollars my biology class was much much more tedious and patronizing than yours. "OK boys and girls, polymers are like these legos stuck together, and monomers are like the blocks!" *click* *click* *click* of plastic.... We spent months on punnett squares, really. An entire academic quarter.
God is a damn big hypothesis
No, She's a holy big hypothesis, thank you very much.
No, it doesn't. BTW, a couple license plate designs ago Nebraska had chimney rock on ours. It's really all we have.
Thank you for that pointless comment. You have taken usefull energy and turned it into a slashdot comment, thereby bringing the universe closer to heat death.
No, he's been posting that for a couple days now on various stories.
yes, they used to do that at my old school, only with ti-82's and ti-83's. They also let students borrow those same calculators for classwork if they happened to forget theirs or their batteries died. Needless to say, many of those school calculators had simple trig programs written in tibasic on them, as well as cool games like tetris.
I've wondered why Missouri has that stupid nickname for a while, but always forget about it by the time I'm somewhere to look it up. You reminded me again and I found where it came from. Apparently it came from an 1899 speech given by Missouri congressman Willard D. Vandiver in Philadelphia:
"I come from a country that raises corn, cotton, cockleburs, and Democrats. I'm from Missouri, and you've got to show me."
I guess Show-me state would be better than the Canoe-posessor state, or the Where-I-go-to-buy-bottle-rockets state.
Me, I'm from the cornhusker state, see, because we grow corn here. Clever huh? At least you guys have a cool state coin, ours will probably have Chimney Rock and Fred Astaire on it.
The Pope is Catholic?
Yes, there is a difference between basic rights and derived rights. Whether or not I have the right to freely make copies of a piece of software and distribute them to friends is a derived from property rights. With the right to property comes the right to engage in business, licensing and contracts. One of the government's jobs is to protect property rights by protecting people from fraud and theft.
Maybe I have some special rights as a shareholder of a company, or as an employee, but these again are just derived from property rights, which are protected by the government.
Government can only take away or protect our rights; they cannot give us anymore.
The right to drive a car is not a basic right, but it is a derived one. It is derived from the rights to liberty and property, and should not be taken away unless one's use of a car violate the rights of others.
The government does not really give you the right to drive a car. You already have that right. If there were no government, there would be nothing to stop you from driving a car, save individuals and corporations. Government protects your right to drive a car from those individuals and corporations that could try to prevent it with force.
Besides the phrasing, I don't see what is American-Centric about my definition of basic human rights, especially considering that the ideas originally came from chiefly European philosophers, and considering the incredible prevalence of violations of those rights by the US government, and how much the American people are willing to disregard them. Even about eighty years after our government was founded, we still practiced slavery, possibly the worst kind of violation of human rights there is.
I would be interested in hearing what you see as the basic rights of mankind.
Well that's the same thing I do, except you have your palm suspended over the mouse(and it doesn't get sweaty that way I suppose) whereas my palm is touching. It's the same amount of wrist movement whether your palm is touching the mouse or whether only your fingers are, for me anyway. I rest my entire palm on the mouse and still only move my wrist around. The original poster said something about using "just [his] fingers so that only [his] wrist has to move around rather than [his] entire arm" As far as I can tell, it would be the same kind of movement, just your palm wouldn't get sweaty. I don't see why resting your palm on the mouse would preclude use of your wrist and force you to move your arm. Maybe I'm just strange and/or dense.
Umm, I rest my entire palm on the mouse, and I can still move my wrist without moving my arm.... I'm afraid I don't understand what you're getting at.
You're a little confused, and that's fine because you probably have no reason to be that familiar with early American history. Most Americans wouldn't know what I'm going to tell you either. Let me try to straighten you out on a couple points.
The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document of any kind. We can't go to court and say our rights were violated in a way similar to the way in which King George III violated the rights of the colonists.
Our "legal rights" are laid out in our Constitution, in the part called the Bill of Rights. The preamble to the Constitution is not really legal either. We can't go to court and try to argue that the government is not doing it's job of "creating a more perfect union." The Preamble is just a kind of "introduction." It explains why the constitution is being written, and some of the philosophy behind it.
I've tried to explain, this philosophy is just philosophy. You can't say that the statements made in our Declaration are purely American and can't be applied to the other nations of the world. They are not American statements, but human statements.
A side note, actually our government and our revolution WAS something that many countries of the world have looked to as an example, and have modeled their governments after. And the writings that influenced our forefathers, as well as later American writings, like Paine's Common Sense and Thoreau's Civil Disobediance HAVE been something the world has looked to to help define human rights. I'm not saying either that America TODAY is all that great of a model, but it was an excelent one when it started.
I think that this conversation has gone on long enough that I've figured out the core issue of our discussion, the difference in philosophy, and you can correct me if I'm wrong. Here are, as well as I can tell, the possibilities:
1. Man has rights. He has the same rights whether he is a wheat farmer, forced to hand over his crop to Stalin, in exchange for almost enough bread, or a hermit who hunts his own food, lives in a house he built with his hands, and has managed to avoid any interaction with any other human for the last 12 years. Government's job is to define an implementation of those rights in a legal way, and protect them.
A. These rights include life, liberty, property and self-determination. Revolution is a corollary of self-determination.(This is my view and the view of the philosophers of the age of enlightenment.)
B. Man has inalienable rights, endowed by the Creator, but they aren't the same as what is laid out in 1A.
2. Man's rights are those that are defined by the government. If the government says he has a right to liberty, then he does. And if they say he has to hand over his property to the government, or that he doesn't have the right to be on the street after midnight, or that he has to go to the polling center today and place a piece of paper, blank or not, in a box, then that's the way it should be.
I suspect that you are of the view of 1b, and you just disagree with my views on liberty, but still hold that man has certain unalienable rights. You may also be of view 2, I'm not sure. Either way, I think that there is a philosophical difference, that cannot really be resolved with further discussion. We've come down to a matter of pure opinion.
You put it much better than I would have been able to.
Since the Australian people have agreed to let their personal liberty be compromised, and have made this violation law, then yes, the government has a duty then to compell it's citizens to vote. The Australian people have a right to give up their liberty. Self-determination is important. Do not misunderstand me though.
While the government has a duty to do this, it does not make it right. During World War II, in the United States, mass numbers of Japanese Americans were held in internment camps for supposed protection against espionage. The gaurds certainly had a government-sanctioned duty to keep them there, but this does not change the fact that those citizens' personal liberty was violated. There may not have been a vote that put those Americans there, like there was that put Australians in voting centers on election days, but there was no vote to halt their internment, so their liberty was still removed by a democratic majority process.
First of all, the bill of rights is part of the constitution. And no, the philosophies behind the documents that are the basis of our government and key points in our history are not the philosophies of the American people. They are just philosophies.
As to why the American people tout the Declaration and the Constitution, well, they don't. I doubt the average American could identify the Preamble to the Constitution for a hundred dollars.
OK you win.
You seem to have a problem with reading comprehension. I never said that Australia is subject the the US Constitution.
You also apparently missed "Of COURSE, self-determination is one of the most important principles of civilization. The Australian people have the right to have whatever kind of government they wish, even one that takes away rights that I would consider to be fundamental."
The ideas set forth on the works of John Locke and William Gladstone; in the US Constitution and Declaration of Independence, are just ideas. To say they are the values of the American people, or to say that they are values of the American government is ignorant and nonsensical. To try to say that the idea of liberty is something unique to some country or not relevant to another is deeply asinine.
Please reread the thread. If you'll notice, I first expressed my own ideas, and then after my ideas themselves were received as if they were as foreign as a Martian on Venus, I pointed out that they were not new ideas by any stretch, and could be found many other places.
Wow a choice! Gee a CHOICE of what to do after a violation of personal liberty mandates you be somewhere at a certain time, despite not having violated the personal rights of others! And yes, I am saying that the philosophy behind mandatory voting shares much with the philosophies behind various fascist, socialist, authoritarian and monarchistic systems.
I AM a Libertarian nut job.
Though I support taxation, my take on it is almost backwards, in a sense, to yours. Taxation is not a duty of the people. The people have no "duty" to their government. The government has a duty to them.
The people, by their own consent, choose to create an entity for their own protection from threats foreign and domestic, etc. You see, the payment of taxes is by their own consent. No one can claim by his own authority, a right to the property of others.
This raises the issue then, how can taxes be imposed then on the minority of people who do not support them?
My answer is that participation in society should be voluntary, however for all practical purposes it is quite difficult to try to find somewhere to live under no governmental rule.
There is no society that is structured according to my ideals.
I heard this great idea for a game you might be interested in: "You have a mat, and it's got some conclusions written on it, and you back up next to the mat, and think about a question, and then you jump to a conclusion. Right there on the mat, you jump to a conclusion..." Pay attention. By choosing to violate the rights of others, you give up claims on your own and are thereby subject to restrictions on liberty and the criminal justice system. See my other posts in this thread.
Of COURSE, self-determination is one of the most important principles of civilization. The Australian people have the right to have whatever kind of government they wish, even one that takes away rights that I would consider to be fundamental.
As to "Where do you pull this from?" Well, it really doesn't matter. An opinion is an opinion, I did not make a statement of fact, and therefore I don't have to justify it. However, since you seem to think that what I've expressed is some kind of new idea you've never heard of before, I'll try to point you to places where similar sentiments can be found.
First, from dictionary.com, one of the definitions of "liberty":
From the American Declaration of Independence:
From the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States:
Those Constitution and Declaration were written under much influence of Locke and Blackstone. Contemporaries who feel much the same can be found in the Libertatian Party and among the followers of Ayn Rand's Objectivism.
Whether or not individuals have a duty to protect others is a religious/ethical issue and it certainly should not be mandated by the state. If you want to talk about requiring things of your subjects for the common good of all, then you're talking about communism. If they can require you to go to the polls on a certain day, then they can require you to spend a couple days cleaning up a floodzone, or maybe a couple months of filing papers for Big Brother...
You hit the nail on the head. No one cares if there are serious problems with online voting for their politicians, but do you know how many people would be crying foul if there lwere a problem with this?
The duty of the government is to protect the rights and well-being of it's citizens. I do not believe I should be compelled to be anywhere or compelled to NOT be somewhere unless I have violated the rights of others. YES, I DO mean that I do not believe in the draft or in the way in the way the Jury duty is set up either.