e.g. One dollar a week == no lifestyle impact; $370MM payout == off the charts lifestyle impact.
As to the lifestyle impact, it is a provable truism that most maximum payout winners do not actually improve their lives.
I believe that what you say is true.
But, I would further suggest that anybody who gets a $370 Million payout and has anything less than an off the charts lifestyle impact is a complete moron with no imagination.
Suppose, for instance, one had absolutely no knowledge of the Constitution, but was well versed in philosophy; Sartre and Kant and Plato and so on. One could recite the Magna Carta from memory (which, despite being foundational to the US Constitution you fail to mention).
I would say the Magna Carta was more inspirational than foundational, but yes, my three examples listed on two lines were certainly not intended to be a comprehensive list of all documents and beliefs that went into the Constitution of the United States of America. I also failed to mention the Declaration of Independence, Common Sense, the persons of Thomas Jefferson or Benjamin Franklin, the democracy of Athens, and the entire history of Rome. And even with these additions, I still haven't mentioned several million other things that all contributed to the Constitution, so please don't anybody else feel slighted if I missed your favorite.
But what you're saying is that such a person is unfit to have a say in their government, if they happened to, of a sudden, be a citizen here. Simply because even though they may have been exposed to the principles of a document, they're not familiar with that document.
Yes. That is what I'm saying. That, out of all of those other documents, out all the philosophy in all the discussions that went into creating the government of the United States, that the Constitution is far and away the single most important, and a person who has lived here, grown up here, or moved here from another country should be familiar with it, even more than with any of its sources. Like any system shared by many people, anyone should have some knowledge of how that particular system works before having a voice in how to change it. Currently, only those who move here are actually required to do so.
If you're going to have a dividing line, it should be one based on service, which is quantifiable, not on merit, which is qualitative.
Yeah, that would be good, too. Sort of like what Heinlein described in his novel Starship Troopers. I have no real objection to the system he described. Service is optional, and you still have rights, privileges, and can get along just fine, but you need to serve society in some capacity for two years before you get a voice in it. Of course, even there, part of his proposed two years of service involved taking a civics course and passing tests proving you'd learned the material.
It is a very dubious moral prospect to suggest someone should be governed by laws they have no say in.
Oh, I'll agree there. Of course, there's a world of difference between having no say in the laws because you've been shut out of the process and choosing to have no say. People who don't bother to vote are still expected to obey the laws. And those who never bother to register ahead of time aren't allowed to vote. So why not those who can't be bothered to learn a bit about the country?
Yeah, I realize such a proposal might be seen as an attack on the Bush administration, which depends on people who believe that the founding fathers put "one nation under god" into the pledge of allegiance because they were founding an officially Christian nation. But, really, they aren't the first large band of stupid people to foster ill-advised laws on us, and they won't be the last.
Actually, that was a rather rude response to someone who had a differing opinion.
And, don't mistake that you're opinion somehow was a "fact" while the GP's was therefore useless.
You stated you believed one thing, that the Electoral College was "used to prevent larger states from exerting it's influence over smaller states".
The GP agreed that it was for that reason but also to "give a buffer between the people and who is elected President." And then went on to provide a quote from the Federalist papers to back it up.
And when you respond to "I think X for the following reasons" with "You're wrong so shut the fuck up" you just give the impression of a simpering child upset at bring proven wrong over what is, really, a rather trivial thing.
So do you find, in the Constitution or its supporting documentation, something that leads you to believe the authors wanted to dole out the right to vote that way?
No, my comment was meant to be musing on an idea of how to improve the current system, not a description of how it is.
That said, however, smidget2k4, did point out a quote from Hamilton that could certainly be taken as approval of the general idea.
And, I should point out, that the right to vote is already doled out that way. Unless you happen to have been born here, you need to pass such a test before you are allowed to vote, or have many other of the rights and privileges of citizenship.
Yeah, locking people out of the voting process because they fall below some standard you set makes for a great defence of democracy. Whatever happened to the Slashdot support for the American ideal that all men are endowed with inalienable rights regardless of what some elite says?
Sure, you've got an inalienable right to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness.
I've never supported the right to vote among those, though.
If you move to the United States from another country, you have to pass a test before you can vote. Passing said test will put you far ahead of the average high school graduate in knowledge of American government and history. I've got no problem with requiring the same test even of those born here.
I don't see why a person who's never read the Constitution, and doesn't know the difference between the Bill of the Rights and the Ten Commandments, or has no understanding of the founding principles of the country, and what made it significantly different from the government we broke away from, should have an equal voice in running the nation.
Creationism / intelligent design does not negate evolution, nor does evolution negate creationism / intelligent design, unless the person discussing either one is unnecessarily rigid about it. The bible wasn't meant to be read that way
If you believe that, then you're not part of the problem.
The problem with creationists only come about when they attempt (with frequent success) to use the courts and other political processes to stop scientific advancement and education.
This is not being done by people like you. It is being done by people who believe the Bible was meant to be read that way.
I don't have a problem with anyone believing whatever they want. But when they try to impose it on me well, then, yeah, then we have a problem.
Is the assertion "Life arose from non-life around three billion years ago on the prehistoric earth" falsifiable without resorting to some form of the anthropic principle?
Absolutely it's falsifiable.
One way to falsify it would be to show evidence that there was life on the earth before then.
Another way would be to discover life elsewhere, on some other planet, and demonstrate that it has a common ancestor in the evolutionary chain as ourselves. This would not immediately disprove Earth as the origin, but it would indicate that it is not necessarily the origin of all life.
Another way to falsify the statement would be to demonstrate that despite extensive search there has been no evidence of life found in three billion year old strata (I have no idea if we actually have access to any, outside the moon). This would indicate life arose more recently.
There are all sorts of ideas about how abiogenesis may have come about, and a number of people are researching, coming up with theories and hypotheses, and, most importantly of all, ideas on how they can be investigated.
Of course, there is no generally accepted theory of abiogenesis yet, the way there is of gravity, electro-magnetism, and evolution by natural selection. But they're working on it.
Which is more than can be said of any Creationist. In all the years they've been around, they've yet to suggest a single experiment, or come forth with any single thing their "theory" would predict. All they can do is dig up gaps in our current understanding of evolutionary processes and claim they are "proof" of whatever they want to propose.
I really don't understand why everyone taxes by the gallon. They should charge by the dollar. Then they wouldn't have to pass a new law every couple of years because of inflation or price fluctuations.
The rationale behind taxing by the gallon, I think, is that it's an indicator of how much you use the road. The more you drive, the more gallons of gas you buy.
The road doesn't get more expensive to maintain as fuel prices go up, so taxing by dollar wouldn't make sense there. Though adjusting for inflation does, of course.
D&D 1st and 2nd edition were both on the market for decades. Then Wizards of the Coast purchases D&D and all of a sudden a new edition is coming out every few years. They are just trying to make people buy tons of their printed material
You don't remember all the crap that TSR published to expand, change rules, add additional material, etc., for 2nd edition?
At least the material for 3 and 3.5 was mostly of decent quality, and not just geared towards making your character more powerful with each new splat book.
That said, from what I've seen, I won't be "upgrading" from 3.5 any time soon. I hardly even use miniatures, so don't need a "simplified" system built around them.
we've got a 30+ mile per hour windstorm going. My cable's still on. Don't know how a dish would be faring.
Comcast's commercials to the contrary, dishes seem to actually fare better in extreme weather.
When I was living in St. Louis, my cable would routinely go out in heavy storms (screen gets all blocky, then replaced with "Searching for satellite signal"). My friends with Dish network would often be working just fine during this time.
The problem with Dish is that you can't really use it if you're renting an apartment, and you don't have a balcony facing South. (And often not even if you do, if the management company doesn't allow you to mount a satellite dish outside.)
I've got internet now through Comcast, but I never use their TV service. Currently, it's not even plugged into my TV. The only alternative is SBC DSL, which sucks. Doesn't mean I'm "satisfied" with Comcast by any means.
I don't necessarily agree with everything on that list. I think he kinds of reaches for some, like different prophets lamenting that the righteous all die, and rejoicing that the righteous live. But others, like what Jesus said on the cross, or the entire creation story, are kinda important.
Other people have made their own lists, for example this one or these.
Or, you could just read through the thing with a critical eye and you'll find many more, I'm sure.
But how is it clearly unreasonable to eavesdrop on phone conversations between suspected or known international terrorists and people residing within the US? I can't imagine a good argument for why that would even be "unreasonable", let alone "clearly unreasonable."
That would be perfectly legal.
And perfectly OK with me. And most of the people responding here.
But that isn't what this bill does.
It's already legal to wiretap suspected criminals, whether they be terrorists, thieves, or drug dealers. Even if they're only in the United States with no international part to the conversation whatsoever. And it has been legal for a very long time.
With the advent of FISA, it even became legal to begin the wiretap first, and get the warrant later. And even that can be OK in some cases. Shaky, and easy to abuse, but a good case can be made that it's needed.
Skipping the warrant altogether, giving blanket permission to wiretap anyone, for any reason, with no record ever being made of it having been done, or why, or who authorized it, yeah, that's a very, very, very bad thing by an order of magnitude over what was there before.
I have to say I kinda agree with the decision to give the telecoms immunity.
...
The telecoms can't be blamed for caving.
Absolutely they can be blamed. They, like anybody else, have not just a right, but a responsibility, to disobey an illegal order.
Especially after Congress made it clear last year that illegal wiretapping is still illegal. The whole purpose of that legislation was to remove any doubt as to the interpretation of the law.
And, even if they did go along with it, when Congress asked them to testify, they should not have, in any matter whatsoever, refused to provide data, including who was wiretapped, and who asked them to do it.
Well, about Harry Potter, we can prove, today, observationally that he was dreamed up by a person and only ever existed on paper.
No we can't.
All we can prove is that some woman from Scotland claims she made him up and that he only exists on paper.
However, she has also indicated on many occasions that he's a real person, and that she's only recording information dictated to or observed by her.
She may occasionally claim that she invented the whole thing, but there's no reason to give her any more credence than H.P. Lovecraft's claim that he invented the Necronomicon.
But the Bible on the other hand, was written over a 1400 year period, 66 books by several authors. And you can map out things that
either took a massive load of collusion, or has to be fact. There was no internet back then, no blogs, and things just match up far to well to easily discount the meaning.
Except of course for all the myriads of places where it contradicts itself and/or reality. (Which I'm sure are about to be pointed out to you, so I won't bother. But if they're not, five minutes with Google will give you the most frequently cited.
And besides, Harry Potter has thousands of stories written by hundreds of authors and contradicts itself far less, (if you ignore the slash and shippers.)
Or maybe it saves lives, has saved U.S. life at home and abroad, and they can prove it.
It seems unlikely, though. Considering how big a deal they make out of every "foiled terrorist plot" they uncover that turns out to be a bunch of wankers who live in a warehouse and talk about blowing up buildings but are too busy passing the pipe to get around to learning how to actually make working explosives, you would think that if they had any actual successes from a controversial program they would be trotting it out all over the place.
Of course, if they did, then you'd still have people like me asking how come they couldn't follow the Constitution and get a warrant before wiretapping, and keep track of who they were wiretapping and what they used the information for.
But how many public libraries would let someone who doesn't subscribe to high-speed Internet access cart in a home PC and activate and update a retail game?
Depends on the librarian, I suppose, but, if you ask first, and it's not during a particularly busy time, and you're not a dick about it, the answer to your question is "pretty much all of them."
They exist, literally, to serve, and most libraries have no problems doing something a little out of the ordinary, like letting you plug your own computer in for a short time, as long as it doesn't disrupt their normal operations too much.
Some of them even have wireless now, so you can use a laptop to access their connection without having to plug in.
Slashdot Mirror
Nah, those people were always like that.
It's really our own fault, for not inviting them to our parties. :)
Sexy underwear for the morbidly obese?
I believe that what you say is true.
But, I would further suggest that anybody who gets a $370 Million payout and has anything less than an off the charts lifestyle impact is a complete moron with no imagination.
I would say the Magna Carta was more inspirational than foundational, but yes, my three examples listed on two lines were certainly not intended to be a comprehensive list of all documents and beliefs that went into the Constitution of the United States of America. I also failed to mention the Declaration of Independence, Common Sense, the persons of Thomas Jefferson or Benjamin Franklin, the democracy of Athens, and the entire history of Rome. And even with these additions, I still haven't mentioned several million other things that all contributed to the Constitution, so please don't anybody else feel slighted if I missed your favorite.
Yes. That is what I'm saying. That, out of all of those other documents, out all the philosophy in all the discussions that went into creating the government of the United States, that the Constitution is far and away the single most important, and a person who has lived here, grown up here, or moved here from another country should be familiar with it, even more than with any of its sources. Like any system shared by many people, anyone should have some knowledge of how that particular system works before having a voice in how to change it. Currently, only those who move here are actually required to do so.Yeah, that would be good, too. Sort of like what Heinlein described in his novel Starship Troopers. I have no real objection to the system he described. Service is optional, and you still have rights, privileges, and can get along just fine, but you need to serve society in some capacity for two years before you get a voice in it. Of course, even there, part of his proposed two years of service involved taking a civics course and passing tests proving you'd learned the material.
Oh, I'll agree there. Of course, there's a world of difference between having no say in the laws because you've been shut out of the process and choosing to have no say. People who don't bother to vote are still expected to obey the laws. And those who never bother to register ahead of time aren't allowed to vote. So why not those who can't be bothered to learn a bit about the country?
Yeah, I realize such a proposal might be seen as an attack on the Bush administration, which depends on people who believe that the founding fathers put "one nation under god" into the pledge of allegiance because they were founding an officially Christian nation. But, really, they aren't the first large band of stupid people to foster ill-advised laws on us, and they won't be the last.
Actually, that was a rather rude response to someone who had a differing opinion.
And, don't mistake that you're opinion somehow was a "fact" while the GP's was therefore useless.
You stated you believed one thing, that the Electoral College was "used to prevent larger states from exerting it's influence over smaller states".
The GP agreed that it was for that reason but also to "give a buffer between the people and who is elected President." And then went on to provide a quote from the Federalist papers to back it up.
And when you respond to "I think X for the following reasons" with "You're wrong so shut the fuck up" you just give the impression of a simpering child upset at bring proven wrong over what is, really, a rather trivial thing.
No, my comment was meant to be musing on an idea of how to improve the current system, not a description of how it is.
That said, however, smidget2k4, did point out a quote from Hamilton that could certainly be taken as approval of the general idea.
And, I should point out, that the right to vote is already doled out that way. Unless you happen to have been born here, you need to pass such a test before you are allowed to vote, or have many other of the rights and privileges of citizenship.
Yes, that's where the fake story of it being set to 3 is from.
But the time it was actually legislated to be 3.2 was in Indiana
It's especially amusing that it was set to 3.2 as that's not even a correct value if you round it, as 3 would be.
Sure, you've got an inalienable right to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness.
I've never supported the right to vote among those, though.
If you move to the United States from another country, you have to pass a test before you can vote. Passing said test will put you far ahead of the average high school graduate in knowledge of American government and history. I've got no problem with requiring the same test even of those born here.
I don't see why a person who's never read the Constitution, and doesn't know the difference between the Bill of the Rights and the Ten Commandments, or has no understanding of the founding principles of the country, and what made it significantly different from the government we broke away from, should have an equal voice in running the nation.
If you believe that, then you're not part of the problem.
The problem with creationists only come about when they attempt (with frequent success) to use the courts and other political processes to stop scientific advancement and education.
This is not being done by people like you. It is being done by people who believe the Bible was meant to be read that way.
I don't have a problem with anyone believing whatever they want. But when they try to impose it on me well, then, yeah, then we have a problem.
Absolutely it's falsifiable.
One way to falsify it would be to show evidence that there was life on the earth before then.
Another way would be to discover life elsewhere, on some other planet, and demonstrate that it has a common ancestor in the evolutionary chain as ourselves. This would not immediately disprove Earth as the origin, but it would indicate that it is not necessarily the origin of all life.
Another way to falsify the statement would be to demonstrate that despite extensive search there has been no evidence of life found in three billion year old strata (I have no idea if we actually have access to any, outside the moon). This would indicate life arose more recently.
There are all sorts of ideas about how abiogenesis may have come about, and a number of people are researching, coming up with theories and hypotheses, and, most importantly of all, ideas on how they can be investigated.
Of course, there is no generally accepted theory of abiogenesis yet, the way there is of gravity, electro-magnetism, and evolution by natural selection. But they're working on it.
Which is more than can be said of any Creationist. In all the years they've been around, they've yet to suggest a single experiment, or come forth with any single thing their "theory" would predict. All they can do is dig up gaps in our current understanding of evolutionary processes and claim they are "proof" of whatever they want to propose.
The rationale behind taxing by the gallon, I think, is that it's an indicator of how much you use the road. The more you drive, the more gallons of gas you buy.
The road doesn't get more expensive to maintain as fuel prices go up, so taxing by dollar wouldn't make sense there. Though adjusting for inflation does, of course.
had
Yes, well, there's one example.
And, a good example of what I meant when I said that the compiler of the list was "reaching" in some cases.
As I don't know Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic well, I'll take your word for the translation.
But, what phrase in any of those languages means "why hast thou forsaken me?" AND "unto thy hands I commend my spirit" AND "It is finished"?
Because, you know, we just didn't get to see enough of Wookie home life in the Star Wars Holiday Special!
You don't remember all the crap that TSR published to expand, change rules, add additional material, etc., for 2nd edition?
At least the material for 3 and 3.5 was mostly of decent quality, and not just geared towards making your character more powerful with each new splat book.
That said, from what I've seen, I won't be "upgrading" from 3.5 any time soon. I hardly even use miniatures, so don't need a "simplified" system built around them.
Comcast's commercials to the contrary, dishes seem to actually fare better in extreme weather.
When I was living in St. Louis, my cable would routinely go out in heavy storms (screen gets all blocky, then replaced with "Searching for satellite signal"). My friends with Dish network would often be working just fine during this time.
The problem with Dish is that you can't really use it if you're renting an apartment, and you don't have a balcony facing South. (And often not even if you do, if the management company doesn't allow you to mount a satellite dish outside.)
I've got internet now through Comcast, but I never use their TV service. Currently, it's not even plugged into my TV. The only alternative is SBC DSL, which sucks. Doesn't mean I'm "satisfied" with Comcast by any means.
Yeah, I've got it too, on VHS.
It's watchable if:
1. You've got a good group together
2. You're all drinking heavily.
I didn't have any particular ones in mind, just the general ones that people always point to in these online forums whenever the topic comes up.
Here's one list that somebody compiled:
I don't necessarily agree with everything on that list. I think he kinds of reaches for some, like different prophets lamenting that the righteous all die, and rejoicing that the righteous live. But others, like what Jesus said on the cross, or the entire creation story, are kinda important.
Other people have made their own lists, for example this one or these.
Or, you could just read through the thing with a critical eye and you'll find many more, I'm sure.
That would be perfectly legal.
And perfectly OK with me. And most of the people responding here.
But that isn't what this bill does.
It's already legal to wiretap suspected criminals, whether they be terrorists, thieves, or drug dealers. Even if they're only in the United States with no international part to the conversation whatsoever. And it has been legal for a very long time.
With the advent of FISA, it even became legal to begin the wiretap first, and get the warrant later. And even that can be OK in some cases. Shaky, and easy to abuse, but a good case can be made that it's needed.
Skipping the warrant altogether, giving blanket permission to wiretap anyone, for any reason, with no record ever being made of it having been done, or why, or who authorized it, yeah, that's a very, very, very bad thing by an order of magnitude over what was there before.
Especially after Congress made it clear last year that illegal wiretapping is still illegal. The whole purpose of that legislation was to remove any doubt as to the interpretation of the law.
And, even if they did go along with it, when Congress asked them to testify, they should not have, in any matter whatsoever, refused to provide data, including who was wiretapped, and who asked them to do it.
No we can't.
All we can prove is that some woman from Scotland claims she made him up and that he only exists on paper.
However, she has also indicated on many occasions that he's a real person, and that she's only recording information dictated to or observed by her.
She may occasionally claim that she invented the whole thing, but there's no reason to give her any more credence than H.P. Lovecraft's claim that he invented the Necronomicon.
Except of course for all the myriads of places where it contradicts itself and/or reality. (Which I'm sure are about to be pointed out to you, so I won't bother. But if they're not, five minutes with Google will give you the most frequently cited.
And besides, Harry Potter has thousands of stories written by hundreds of authors and contradicts itself far less, (if you ignore the slash and shippers.)
It seems unlikely, though. Considering how big a deal they make out of every "foiled terrorist plot" they uncover that turns out to be a bunch of wankers who live in a warehouse and talk about blowing up buildings but are too busy passing the pipe to get around to learning how to actually make working explosives, you would think that if they had any actual successes from a controversial program they would be trotting it out all over the place.
Of course, if they did, then you'd still have people like me asking how come they couldn't follow the Constitution and get a warrant before wiretapping, and keep track of who they were wiretapping and what they used the information for.
Depends on the librarian, I suppose, but, if you ask first, and it's not during a particularly busy time, and you're not a dick about it, the answer to your question is "pretty much all of them."
They exist, literally, to serve, and most libraries have no problems doing something a little out of the ordinary, like letting you plug your own computer in for a short time, as long as it doesn't disrupt their normal operations too much.
Some of them even have wireless now, so you can use a laptop to access their connection without having to plug in.
And, also, that a fairly major access point to Usenet is Google, who can afford a lawyer or two themselves.