They do it in North America as well. For instance, with TVs, Best Buy / Futureshop, Walmart, Costco, and sometimes others have special models. Costco models are actually noticeably different sometimes (fewer ports, other corners cut), but otherwise they usually differ only in the model number and maybe extremely minor differences to keep it on the up-and-up.
IIRC, "Read your phone state and identity" is a default permission on apps targeting older versions of Android. This means there's a lot of completely legit apps that request that permission, even if they don't need or use it for anything.
And furthermore, why aren't they split? It makes sense for a game to know if I'm taking a call so it can pause itself. But why does that game also have to know who is calling me and know my IMEI?
Android's permission system is nice, but it's nowhere near perfect, and maintaining backwards compatibility means it probably won't get much better any time soon.
You are the perfect example of somone who has been programmed by the media.
The "Get Out of Logic Free" card.
(1) You are bigoted against creationists?
Paul has publicly stated that he disbelieves evolution, and that he believes creationism. You know what this means? That he's formed a belief irrationally, and makes a public point of the fact that he's formed a belief irrationally as though he's proud of himself for it. Is this a positive quality in a potential leader of a nation? No, it's a negative one. Full stop.
That describes some 90% of "Free" mobile games, it seems. It's a "freemium" model. And people just eat this stuff up; the "Top Free Games" on the Android market is just chock full of this junk.
Coke has its "secret" recipe on every can, by law (not all of it, but what's in it, the part you asked for).
No they don't. A lot of it is hidden under "natural flavours". We know they use a flavouring agent from the Coca leaf, for instance, but that doesn't appear in the ingredients list. Exactly what colouring agent they're using also doesn't appear.
Is there some reason that a church can't refuse to religiously marry gay people? What does it matter if the state's civil union is also called "marriage"?
A "theist" believes there is a God. Adding the 'a' prefix makes it the opposite. An "atheist", then, believes there is no God.
You're arguing that because atheists use a word that looks like it should have a different meaning from the one they ascribe to it, their beliefs aren't actually what they think they are. You know that makes no sense, right? Words are tools used by humans, not the other way around.
Atheism is just "I don't believe in God". No assertion there. You can assert that God doesn't exist, that just makes you a special brand of atheist.
Agnosticism was originally "I have no knowledge of...". Now it means that and so many other things that it's almost a useless term unless you qualify what you mean by it. You can be an agnostic atheist ("I don't believe in God; I have no knowledge as to whether a God exists").
Okay, I'm probably just suffering from too much comment skimming.
It really is great TV, I agree. Some people don't understand that it's totally OK if you have to be a little skeptical of a skeptical TV show. I mean, you ought to be skeptical about everything, so whatever:)
This is why the 'skeptic community' at large prefers to refer to these guys as 'climate denialists' rather than 'climate skeptics', and you sure as hell won't hear them using the term 'evolution skeptic'. You have to approach everything skeptically, including your skepticism. If you're not willing to evaluate new contrary evidence and instead dismiss it out-of-hand (or in Watts' case, abuse DMCA takedowns and ban anyone disagreeing with you in your blog's comments), you're no longer a skeptic.
He basically agreed with what most people do, that the climate is heating up. That was only debated by crazies that thought the climate would not change as it has since time began. His findings were *NOT* that humans are causing it or not, which is the real issue.
Watts and his ilk, who for whatever reason continue to be quite popular in the "climate skeptic community", were (some still are) arguing that the methodology used for measuring global temperature was falsely indicating or overemphasising a warming effect, which is why everyone made a big deal of this particular study.
It's easy to poke fun of astrologers and the like, that's not what people take issue with. It's when they decide to go on a Libertarian rant about something that isn't painfully obvious pseudoscience and start quoting the Cato Institute as though it's an authority on anything that people cry foul.
So, as a Canadian, how can I possibly say that climate change is a bad thing?
Because Canada doesn't exist in a bubble? What happens if the US does turn to shit and they start looking north to their nice, juicy, poorly-defended, temperate neighbour? What about our economy when our trade partners start to suffer?
I do not see what these individuals can benefit from scaring people away from aspartame?
People that sell alternate sweeteners (i.e. Stevia based). Alternative, Homeopathic, Naturopathic, or CAM practitioners that sell their services. People that make money off of books about medical conspiracies and nonsense. People that make money from ads from page hits on their blog about medical conspiracies. People that like fame and want to gain followers somehow.
Never mind that some people just really like a good conspiracy. Reality hasn't gotten in the way of chemtrails people, and I'm not sure there's much money to be made there.
The "there's no money in ____, so why would anyone say it unless it's true?" argument is rarely, if ever, valid.
This is the first quote that frustrates me from this snippet: I mean the governance structure, the ability to collaborate, the ability for there to be multiple devices from multiple vendors.. Do they not realise that this is exactly the status quo? Collaboration and governance are HUGE objectives for all of the major players in this game. Apple has iCloud, Microsoft has Windows Live and Office 365. Android has Google account synchronisation, control and access deeply ingrained into its fundamentals. All of these are free. Ubuntu's offering costs money. Umm...
"Collaboration" was in reference to the platform and code, compared with Android and iOS' closed development processes, not document collaboration.
When I cracked my laptop open during lectures, it was because I thought up some solution for an assignment and wanted to put it in. This of course meant that I just had to re-learn the material afterwards, since I'd zone out on the lecture.
I also noticed some laptop students (the ones who weren't playing WoW, checking Facebook, or watching last night's House) spent so much time trying to get diagrams and equations into their laptops that they were completely oblivious to everything the prof was saying. That's a lot to miss, and I'm not sure what if anything they were gaining out of it.
Hey, you say don't want this debate, and then you bring in this like you're just asking for one:
. The athiest needs faith.
The only logical position is agnosticism.
Atheism means that you don't have a belief in a god. It doesn't mean anything more, it doesn't mean that you "believe a god doesn't exist".
Faith means that you believe in something without any evidence. Most religious people even say that they have faith, it's an important part of some religions that you believe even though God doesn't physically reveal himself to you, and you very often hear the word bandied about in churches. Atheism doesn't require this, per the earlier definition.
Agnosticism means that you don't claim knowledge of god's existence or non-existence, or ("strong" agnosticism, a later creation) that you think this knowledge is impossible to determine. You can be an agnostic theist (I believe in God, but I don't know if He exists), but that's not necessarily a rational or logically-consistent position.
Despite what you might think of Obama.. He's just doing the best he can.
Bullfuckingshit. He signed NDAA and is likely going to sign SOPA and PIPA. That's not the "best he can". He got you a house, but the condition is that you and your countrymen can now be jailed indefinitely at his whim. Or, from what he's said, executed even on American soil. Hooray?
Human rights commissions, as they are evolving, are an attack on our fundamental freedoms and the basic existence of a democratic society... It is in fact totalitarianism. I find this is very scary stuff.
I don't like Harper. I don't like his party. I've posted one post in this thread about one of their stupid laws already.
HOWEVER, this quote has been taken out of context. The human rights commissions he was talking about are quasi-judicial "court" with flimsy standards of evidence which does appear to be a threat to the freedoms of Speech and Thought. There's a whole Wikipedia article on criticisms of it.
Come on, blindly supporting or attacking any politician is the sort of foolishness that gets us stuck with people like Harper.
Minimum sentences apply only under aggravating circumstances...
That's not true, unless you count recidivism as aggravating, and I would argue that in this case it really shouldn't be.
(a) subject to paragraph (a.1), if the subject matter of the offence is a substance included in Schedule I or II, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life, and (i) to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year if (A) the person committed the offence for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a criminal organization, as defined in subsection 467.1(1) of the Criminal Code, (B) the person used or threatened to use violence in committing the offence, (C) the person carried, used or threat- ened to use a weapon in committing the offence, or (D) the person was convicted of a designated substance offence, or had served a term of imprisonment for a designated substance offence, within the previous 10 years, or
Minimum 1-year if someone has been caught with drugs twice. The minimums you're talking about are also there: two years for on/near a school or any public place with minors, or if minors were involved at any point.
It's also minimum 1-year for trafficking, and I'm assuming that would include "was smoking his marijuana with his buddies".
And some of them are ambiguously-worded disguises for classic math problems, which just brings you back ground to " figuring out how the test writer's mind works".
Slashdot Mirror
They do it in North America as well. For instance, with TVs, Best Buy / Futureshop, Walmart, Costco, and sometimes others have special models. Costco models are actually noticeably different sometimes (fewer ports, other corners cut), but otherwise they usually differ only in the model number and maybe extremely minor differences to keep it on the up-and-up.
IIRC, "Read your phone state and identity" is a default permission on apps targeting older versions of Android. This means there's a lot of completely legit apps that request that permission, even if they don't need or use it for anything.
And furthermore, why aren't they split? It makes sense for a game to know if I'm taking a call so it can pause itself. But why does that game also have to know who is calling me and know my IMEI?
Android's permission system is nice, but it's nowhere near perfect, and maintaining backwards compatibility means it probably won't get much better any time soon.
You are the perfect example of somone who has been programmed by the media.
The "Get Out of Logic Free" card.
(1) You are bigoted against creationists?
Paul has publicly stated that he disbelieves evolution, and that he believes creationism. You know what this means? That he's formed a belief irrationally, and makes a public point of the fact that he's formed a belief irrationally as though he's proud of himself for it. Is this a positive quality in a potential leader of a nation? No, it's a negative one. Full stop.
That describes some 90% of "Free" mobile games, it seems. It's a "freemium" model. And people just eat this stuff up; the "Top Free Games" on the Android market is just chock full of this junk.
I know it lists it in Europe :P. The flavors are still obscured over there, though.
I hope so. I haven't seen that Electric Universe guy post in forever. Where's he gone to?
No they don't. A lot of it is hidden under "natural flavours". We know they use a flavouring agent from the Coca leaf, for instance, but that doesn't appear in the ingredients list. Exactly what colouring agent they're using also doesn't appear.
If they want it to be "plausible" and technobabbly, all they need is the "right" one-time-pad.
Is there some reason that a church can't refuse to religiously marry gay people? What does it matter if the state's civil union is also called "marriage"?
You're arguing that because atheists use a word that looks like it should have a different meaning from the one they ascribe to it, their beliefs aren't actually what they think they are. You know that makes no sense, right? Words are tools used by humans, not the other way around.
Atheism is just "I don't believe in God". No assertion there. You can assert that God doesn't exist, that just makes you a special brand of atheist.
Agnosticism was originally "I have no knowledge of ...". Now it means that and so many other things that it's almost a useless term unless you qualify what you mean by it. You can be an agnostic atheist ("I don't believe in God; I have no knowledge as to whether a God exists").
Okay, I'm probably just suffering from too much comment skimming.
It really is great TV, I agree. Some people don't understand that it's totally OK if you have to be a little skeptical of a skeptical TV show. I mean, you ought to be skeptical about everything, so whatever :)
This is why the 'skeptic community' at large prefers to refer to these guys as 'climate denialists' rather than 'climate skeptics', and you sure as hell won't hear them using the term 'evolution skeptic'. You have to approach everything skeptically, including your skepticism. If you're not willing to evaluate new contrary evidence and instead dismiss it out-of-hand (or in Watts' case, abuse DMCA takedowns and ban anyone disagreeing with you in your blog's comments), you're no longer a skeptic.
Watts and his ilk, who for whatever reason continue to be quite popular in the "climate skeptic community", were (some still are) arguing that the methodology used for measuring global temperature was falsely indicating or overemphasising a warming effect, which is why everyone made a big deal of this particular study.
It's easy to poke fun of astrologers and the like, that's not what people take issue with. It's when they decide to go on a Libertarian rant about something that isn't painfully obvious pseudoscience and start quoting the Cato Institute as though it's an authority on anything that people cry foul.
Because Canada doesn't exist in a bubble? What happens if the US does turn to shit and they start looking north to their nice, juicy, poorly-defended, temperate neighbour? What about our economy when our trade partners start to suffer?
People that sell alternate sweeteners (i.e. Stevia based). Alternative, Homeopathic, Naturopathic, or CAM practitioners that sell their services. People that make money off of books about medical conspiracies and nonsense. People that make money from ads from page hits on their blog about medical conspiracies. People that like fame and want to gain followers somehow.
Never mind that some people just really like a good conspiracy. Reality hasn't gotten in the way of chemtrails people, and I'm not sure there's much money to be made there.
The "there's no money in ____, so why would anyone say it unless it's true?" argument is rarely, if ever, valid.
"Collaboration" was in reference to the platform and code, compared with Android and iOS' closed development processes, not document collaboration.
When I cracked my laptop open during lectures, it was because I thought up some solution for an assignment and wanted to put it in. This of course meant that I just had to re-learn the material afterwards, since I'd zone out on the lecture.
I also noticed some laptop students (the ones who weren't playing WoW, checking Facebook, or watching last night's House) spent so much time trying to get diagrams and equations into their laptops that they were completely oblivious to everything the prof was saying. That's a lot to miss, and I'm not sure what if anything they were gaining out of it.
Hey, you say don't want this debate, and then you bring in this like you're just asking for one:
Atheism means that you don't have a belief in a god. It doesn't mean anything more, it doesn't mean that you "believe a god doesn't exist".
Faith means that you believe in something without any evidence. Most religious people even say that they have faith, it's an important part of some religions that you believe even though God doesn't physically reveal himself to you, and you very often hear the word bandied about in churches. Atheism doesn't require this, per the earlier definition.
Agnosticism means that you don't claim knowledge of god's existence or non-existence, or ("strong" agnosticism, a later creation) that you think this knowledge is impossible to determine. You can be an agnostic theist (I believe in God, but I don't know if He exists), but that's not necessarily a rational or logically-consistent position.
Bullfuckingshit. He signed NDAA and is likely going to sign SOPA and PIPA. That's not the "best he can". He got you a house, but the condition is that you and your countrymen can now be jailed indefinitely at his whim. Or, from what he's said, executed even on American soil. Hooray?
I just watched that episode. I think you might be in my mind.
I don't like Harper. I don't like his party. I've posted one post in this thread about one of their stupid laws already.
HOWEVER, this quote has been taken out of context. The human rights commissions he was talking about are quasi-judicial "court" with flimsy standards of evidence which does appear to be a threat to the freedoms of Speech and Thought. There's a whole Wikipedia article on criticisms of it.
Come on, blindly supporting or attacking any politician is the sort of foolishness that gets us stuck with people like Harper.
That's not true, unless you count recidivism as aggravating, and I would argue that in this case it really shouldn't be.
Minimum 1-year if someone has been caught with drugs twice. The minimums you're talking about are also there: two years for on/near a school or any public place with minors, or if minors were involved at any point.
It's also minimum 1-year for trafficking, and I'm assuming that would include "was smoking his marijuana with his buddies".
And some of them are ambiguously-worded disguises for classic math problems, which just brings you back ground to " figuring out how the test writer's mind works".