Now, in reality, the author posted it to a forum, probably with the intention of giving away the code. It would be entirely up to the author to sue and whether the author would sue or not -- well, I kinda doubt it. Are you sure now? Because the terms of service of the forum might claim copyright of all posts. In general, letters sent by post are considered property of the recipient. So a statement made for public consumption might be considered property of the public. Otherwise, what is to stop FDR family from claiming copyright on the phrase "we have nothing to fear by fear itself"? I am not a lawyer. Are you?
It is the current US legal opinion on abortion that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees personal privacy. If Ron Paul disagrees with this interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment (as many pro-life politicians do), then he believes that there is no Constitutionally-guaranteed right to privacy in the United States. This opinion ignores the fact that there is another issue involved. If the fetus is considered to be alive human being (I do not believe this to be the case), then the government has the obligation to protect its life. And right to live tramples the right to privacy. A decision of whether a fetus is alive is a philosophical one. And philosophical differences must be resolved on the legislative level. Because it is the elected legislature that most closely represents philosophical (ie, religious, ethical, and the ones derived from non-judgmental empirical observation) believes of the population.
This is from Dr. Paul himself: Similarly, the mythical separation of church and state doctrine has no historical or constitutional basis. Ok, apparently, I'll have to quote for you to actually read it:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. (Obviously emphasis is mine)
Prohibiting government employees from displaying symbols of their religion in their place of work most certainly hinders their right to free exercise of religion. In a system of a complete separation of church and state, government employees would not be legally allowed to (for example) wear a cross while at work. In the same spirit they would not be allowed to post the 10 commandments on their cubicle wall or something. The Constitutional amendment is clear in that it doesn't want the government involved in regulating exercise of religion. The current regime often hinders that exercise. You may be comfortable with it. I (even though I am an atheist) am not.
So, yes, I agree with Dr. Paul sentiments even though I don't share his preferences. I just don't think it's prudent to restrict people in having a say about their lives as much as we do.
Yes, I am afraid of living in a country in which abortion would be illegal. But not because of abortion itself. Rather because it's a symbol of a mood of the population at large. If the majority of the population decided to make it illegal, it would be an indication that the population does not understand or care to understand biological issues more than it cares to understand religious ones.
Sure, just like the Federal Marriage Amendment. Sounds like politics as usual, to me.
He was asked about it during one of the debates and explicitly said he was against it.
Remember that the "Pledge" issue is not about allowing prayer in public school (which I am for, and which will always be perfectly legal), but is about mandating prayer in public school.
There have been a number of cases of schools opposing religious extracurricular clubs in public schools. I won't give links just Google "Christian club public school" and you'll find the examples on your own. Sure people can pray. As long as they hide the fact that they pray. I am pretty sure you don't have orthodox Jews putting on a tfillin and saying their daily prayers in public schools of Brooklyn, either. So this is not just a Christian issue. You simply don't see any religious expression in public places. And that kind of state of affairs can only be achieve by hindering people's natural desire to exercise their religion. Again, I don't think it's prudent. And the 1st amendment does not allow it.
As for "mandating" prayers, it is only mandated if people are coerced to say them. Allowing a minute for a prayer and saying that you have to respect other people's choice to say even if you choose not to say one yourself (for whatever reason) is again non-hindrance rather than establishment.
Yes, you are right about the 10th Amendment's limitation on Fed Gov power. But the Fed Gov is empowered to protect life. So if we assume that the fetus is alive human being (which I don't), then the government has the power to regulate abortion. Since this type of decision is philosophical rather than legal, it's decision can be left in the hands of legislature. Hopefully, legislature would not become the voice of the people that disagree with you and I, but I am not sure that denying them a voice in making this philosophical choice is prudent.
This is generally true. Unless someone runs on a platform of decreasing the role of the government. Have you really not hear d any of Ron Paul's positions?
Having funding for research is a Constitutional right? Which article? Ditto for abortion. I am pro-choice, but I don't think that's a constitutional issue. The Constitution just doesn't talk about anything related to it. As for the 1st Ammendment, read it. Specifically think about what the 2nd part of the 1st sentence means.
You are right, of course, about his opposition to birthright citizenships. But at least, he respects the Constitution enough to say that it needs to be changed before the Federal Government can act as if it had been changed (as it does in the case of Drug War).
But that's a statement that privacy itself has no use. Many people would disagree. There are plenty of reasons for wanting privacy without having anything to hide. But I'll let you do your own research on that.
Science is about observation, forming a hypothesis, and running experiments to test that hypothesis.
Evolution is about observation, forming a hypothesis, and then writing textbooks.
The "repeatability" of the experiment that would back up the hypothesis of random change would be an experiment that sometimes produces a random change. Note that this is not a claim that the same change that occured the previous time will happen again, but rather a claim that some random change will occur.
So no, if you stick another Earth-like planet close to another Sun-like star, you might not see life evolve to the point where human beings exist. This is life -- not Star Trek. But since specilization does produce efficiency and speciliztion of having control functions gives even further efficiency, a chain of random events after a number of tries is likely (but not guaranteed) to produce a sequence of events where multi-cell organisms (and later on multi-cell organisms with highly-developed control functions) will evolve. If they do evolve though, they will most likely NOT have anything resembling our patterns of "thinking".
If you think design of life is so intelligent, then why does potato have more sophisticated DNA then you do, btw?
Just a theory? Ok, simulate its assumptions with constructs that can pair together at random and are forced to compete for resources. And by "forced" I mean that they live or die based on having or not having resources. Simulate occasional rare random changes in your constructs and give them ability to group (as things in the real world can do) into aggregates. See if this purely random arrangement does produce occasional aggregates with specialized subfunctions. Have fun with your genetic programming thesis, btw.
Evolution requires a non chicken to lay a chicken egg. We have observed animals born with 2 heads and people born with 6 fingers. Those are mutations. Mutations don't have to change a specie overnight. The change can be incremental and occruing over millions of generations. So it is science.
Well, maybe once you get old enough you realize that the test of any theory is practice. And maybe Linus is old enough to realize that the test of how useful Linux happens to be is how it is used.
If only there was a legal expert in the field who could start the initiative for forming such an organization; maybe someone with expertise of standing up to the RIAA; maybe even someone experienced with leading discussions among large groups of young people; someone who knew how to explain the benefits of such a foundation both to students and administrators. Aaah... if only.
Nah, no they are too disreputable for Harvard grads to work for them. They are more likely to be afraid that half the judges in front of whom they'll appear came from Harvard Law.
The majority of them also do not make the kind of money that you (in your infinite wisdom, I might add) have deemed excessive. The majority of them are not good. That's why the whole argument "we lose money on 99% of the artists we support" is asinine. It just means that the studios are not good at recognizing talent and try to sign up whoever they can. And somehow that's supposed to mean that the rest of the public is supposed to subsidize their shenanigans. If their earnings came down to earth levels, they'd be forced to actually have a half a brain when picking which artists to sign up and promote. Just because they wouldn't be able to afford to do otherwise.
All good points. But what do they have to do with the parent? The parent said creationists are opposition to science. It didn't say anything about Americans being stupid. Creationists are still a fringe. Maybe you meant to say that they are not at some point in the post? If so, then, well, that's just the case in your neck of the woods.
Thailand has a thriving child sex industry. But posting teenager's info online is illegal? So it's legal to pay to have sex with teens, but it is not legal to post the information about the other teens in you class online? They need to get their priorities straight. And no, I am not trolling. If you don't think Thailand has a thriving teen whore industry, google it for yourself.
This was not a hypothetical. This is some of things that were added on to my tickets in some of the states I drove through. I believe PA almost doubled my ticket with the "equipment cost" surcharge.
Why not? If you are guilty, they can charge you for the violation and the "enforcement equipment cost". So that just means the price of the tickets will triple.
Without taking pro/con sides here, I'll just mention that her heroes are generally vilified and hated by the people who surround them. They are vilified by the crowds that call them selfish. And her books inspire individuals to wear that label as a badge of honor. By acting this emotionally (while talking to a potential Rand fan) you haven't told him that he is an idiot. You became an irrational person in his eyes. You proved to him that he was right to begin with. I don't think that's what you intended. But I think you should know that for the future.
Well, why do they strike then? Under the rules proposed in the grandparent, their jobs wouldn't be available at all. They would have to find other free agents with whom to cooperate to create a movie (or tv show, but you get the point). They can do that without being employed by the studios. The reason they strike is that they believe employment is still more beneficial to them.
Slashdot Mirror
Prohibiting government employees from displaying symbols of their religion in their place of work most certainly hinders their right to free exercise of religion. In a system of a complete separation of church and state, government employees would not be legally allowed to (for example) wear a cross while at work. In the same spirit they would not be allowed to post the 10 commandments on their cubicle wall or something. The Constitutional amendment is clear in that it doesn't want the government involved in regulating exercise of religion. The current regime often hinders that exercise. You may be comfortable with it. I (even though I am an atheist) am not.
So, yes, I agree with Dr. Paul sentiments even though I don't share his preferences. I just don't think it's prudent to restrict people in having a say about their lives as much as we do.
Yes, I am afraid of living in a country in which abortion would be illegal. But not because of abortion itself. Rather because it's a symbol of a mood of the population at large. If the majority of the population decided to make it illegal, it would be an indication that the population does not understand or care to understand biological issues more than it cares to understand religious ones.
Sure, just like the Federal Marriage Amendment. Sounds like politics as usual, to me.He was asked about it during one of the debates and explicitly said he was against it.
Remember that the "Pledge" issue is not about allowing prayer in public school (which I am for, and which will always be perfectly legal), but is about mandating prayer in public school.There have been a number of cases of schools opposing religious extracurricular clubs in public schools. I won't give links just Google "Christian club public school" and you'll find the examples on your own. Sure people can pray. As long as they hide the fact that they pray. I am pretty sure you don't have orthodox Jews putting on a tfillin and saying their daily prayers in public schools of Brooklyn, either. So this is not just a Christian issue. You simply don't see any religious expression in public places. And that kind of state of affairs can only be achieve by hindering people's natural desire to exercise their religion. Again, I don't think it's prudent. And the 1st amendment does not allow it.
As for "mandating" prayers, it is only mandated if people are coerced to say them. Allowing a minute for a prayer and saying that you have to respect other people's choice to say even if you choose not to say one yourself (for whatever reason) is again non-hindrance rather than establishment.Yes, you are right about the 10th Amendment's limitation on Fed Gov power. But the Fed Gov is empowered to protect life. So if we assume that the fetus is alive human being (which I don't), then the government has the power to regulate abortion. Since this type of decision is philosophical rather than legal, it's decision can be left in the hands of legislature. Hopefully, legislature would not become the voice of the people that disagree with you and I, but I am not sure that denying them a voice in making this philosophical choice is prudent.
This is generally true. Unless someone runs on a platform of decreasing the role of the government. Have you really not hear d any of Ron Paul's positions?
Having funding for research is a Constitutional right? Which article? Ditto for abortion. I am pro-choice, but I don't think that's a constitutional issue. The Constitution just doesn't talk about anything related to it. As for the 1st Ammendment, read it. Specifically think about what the 2nd part of the 1st sentence means.
You are right, of course, about his opposition to birthright citizenships. But at least, he respects the Constitution enough to say that it needs to be changed before the Federal Government can act as if it had been changed (as it does in the case of Drug War).But that's a statement that privacy itself has no use. Many people would disagree. There are plenty of reasons for wanting privacy without having anything to hide. But I'll let you do your own research on that.
The "repeatability" of the experiment that would back up the hypothesis of random change would be an experiment that sometimes produces a random change. Note that this is not a claim that the same change that occured the previous time will happen again, but rather a claim that some random change will occur.
So no, if you stick another Earth-like planet close to another Sun-like star, you might not see life evolve to the point where human beings exist. This is life -- not Star Trek. But since specilization does produce efficiency and speciliztion of having control functions gives even further efficiency, a chain of random events after a number of tries is likely (but not guaranteed) to produce a sequence of events where multi-cell organisms (and later on multi-cell organisms with highly-developed control functions) will evolve. If they do evolve though, they will most likely NOT have anything resembling our patterns of "thinking".
If you think design of life is so intelligent, then why does potato have more sophisticated DNA then you do, btw?
Just a theory? Ok, simulate its assumptions with constructs that can pair together at random and are forced to compete for resources. And by "forced" I mean that they live or die based on having or not having resources. Simulate occasional rare random changes in your constructs and give them ability to group (as things in the real world can do) into aggregates. See if this purely random arrangement does produce occasional aggregates with specialized subfunctions. Have fun with your genetic programming thesis, btw.
oooooooooooooh. I didn't know know that was possible with intermediate posts. Thanks!
Well, maybe once you get old enough you realize that the test of any theory is practice. And maybe Linus is old enough to realize that the test of how useful Linux happens to be is how it is used.
I think you confuse "support" with "platform that supports".
Yep, that's what it is. They are afraid of Harvard' football team.
If only there was a legal expert in the field who could start the initiative for forming such an organization; maybe someone with expertise of standing up to the RIAA; maybe even someone experienced with leading discussions among large groups of young people; someone who knew how to explain the benefits of such a foundation both to students and administrators. Aaah... if only.
Nah, no they are too disreputable for Harvard grads to work for them. They are more likely to be afraid that half the judges in front of whom they'll appear came from Harvard Law.
All good points. But what do they have to do with the parent? The parent said creationists are opposition to science. It didn't say anything about Americans being stupid. Creationists are still a fringe. Maybe you meant to say that they are not at some point in the post? If so, then, well, that's just the case in your neck of the woods.
Thailand has a thriving child sex industry. But posting teenager's info online is illegal? So it's legal to pay to have sex with teens, but it is not legal to post the information about the other teens in you class online? They need to get their priorities straight. And no, I am not trolling. If you don't think Thailand has a thriving teen whore industry, google it for yourself.
So you are not opposed to 30-year-old guys having sex with 14-year-old-girls in principle? Just with your sister when she was that age?
This was not a hypothetical. This is some of things that were added on to my tickets in some of the states I drove through. I believe PA almost doubled my ticket with the "equipment cost" surcharge.
Why not? If you are guilty, they can charge you for the violation and the "enforcement equipment cost". So that just means the price of the tickets will triple.
It doesn't mention the fact that Kasparov is the main opposition candidate in the upcoming Russian presidential election.
You haven't read Ayn Rand, have you?
Without taking pro/con sides here, I'll just mention that her heroes are generally vilified and hated by the people who surround them. They are vilified by the crowds that call them selfish. And her books inspire individuals to wear that label as a badge of honor. By acting this emotionally (while talking to a potential Rand fan) you haven't told him that he is an idiot. You became an irrational person in his eyes. You proved to him that he was right to begin with. I don't think that's what you intended. But I think you should know that for the future.
Well, why do they strike then? Under the rules proposed in the grandparent, their jobs wouldn't be available at all. They would have to find other free agents with whom to cooperate to create a movie (or tv show, but you get the point). They can do that without being employed by the studios. The reason they strike is that they believe employment is still more beneficial to them.
Why is Wagner playing in my head while I watch this?