Well, if you're going to help a stab victim I would hope you'd either call 911 or yell to another person to call the number. Either case, there's already evidence you were there and trying to help, so what's the DNA going to do?
Alright, if you will not see a greener desert in the short term, then why is it happening RIGHT NOW? How is it an almost certainty that there will be less rain?
Due to global cooling, and the climate we have seen the last 10 millenia (which provided the most stable climate in earth history as far as we can tell), humanity prospered
Sure, if you ignore the fact that we were almost pushed to extinction because of the lack of available food in Africa. Global cooling is not the cause of our success, it was an obstacle that had to be overcome on our way to success. We're still tropical creatures, only unusually smart tropical creatures.
You are right however that the overwhelming majority of the environmental damage we do is on the local level, but that's not an arguement for solar power as it is for improved stewardship of fertile lands in third-world countries (The US is doing just fine at home, with more forests now than there were a hundred years ago).
Yes, just like what the Ice Age did to all those sprawling forests in Africa! Oh wait, that turned them into deserts didn't it? Now, if you switched your instances of "Global Warming" with your instances of "Global Cooling", you'd be right about the environmental imapact, except for the skiing thing.
Yoshiko Takahashi is no environmental activist, but in the last year she has become an ardent fan of the solar panels that generate most of the electricity for her 1,100-square-foot home. Using solar power, which was included with the new house that she and her husband bought a little more than a year ago, has not only cut the family's electricity bill by 17 percent but also made her feel good about helping fight global warming.
Actually, the increase in crop yields is a vaild point. Global warming is causing the deserts to actually become greener due to increased rain fall and higher levels of CO2. Remember, there were no deserts before global cooling.
So, a Tony Blair or a JFK wouldn't disclose that information, but a Hitler or a Stalin would??? You seem to be confusing all religious people with Pat Buchanan.
Not only bacteria. There are some species of crabs, fish and worms that are also completely cut off from solar energy. The bacteria is simply at the bottom of the food chain.
Um, we do know what to do with by products of nuclear fission, it's just that when Carter was president he signed a presidential order banning the reclimation of spent fuel rods. Plus, if our youngest plants weren't 30 years old we'd be far more efficient and produce less waste. Japan and France seem to be doing just fine with 80% of their power being derived from nuclear sources.
So, we can't use oil because of air pollution We can't use natural gas because we have to drill for it and build pipelines We can't use nuclear because the tiny ammount of byproducts produced over time will be around for a long while. We can't use dams because of local environmental concerns (yet we can put up with an over population of beavers doing the same thing) We can't use wind because it'll kill endangered birds and the whole "Not in our backyard" mentality We can't use tidal generators because it'll kill dolphins
Of course some ships ARE scuttled, yet you don't hear Greenpeace protesting, mainly because scuttled ships are used to grow reefs. Just make sure there's no oil in the hold and you're OK.
But there are plenty of people since Lowell who have seen them, and people continue to till this day. Even NASA was convinced they'd see something on Mars actually causing the channels when they sent Mariner, and you can't tell me they didn't have great telescopes at the time. They were somewhat surprised when the probe got there and they couldn't see anything remotely resembling canals. However, you need not break out a telescope and point it at the red planet to see this effect. Just get a group of people willing to draw. Then, take a white canvas and draw some black dots on it. Move the canvas a good distance away (just so they can just make out the dots) and have the people that you've drafted into this experiment draw. You'll be surprised at how many people draw lines connecting the points.
Actually, many of the channels he observed were optical illusions caused by the brain trying to play "connect the dots", which is why on many of the early hand-drawn maps you see such perfectly straight lines criss-crossing the surface.
Excuse me, but you seem to be wanting to eat your cake and have it too. As the grandparent said, if you assemble on private property, you can be asked to leave and be forced to comply. If you take away the right of the owner of private property to expell guests that create a distrubance, then you are striping the owner of his rights to privacy. Thus, your inclusion of the current actions of the RIAA as something bad seems to run counter to your apparent claim that people should be allowed to gather wherever they damn well please.
Inherent rights? No, people have only the rights they can protect. As for "the government shall not" being implied, when the Constitution was written there was a big debate over whether or not it was necessary. Many saw it as pointless as previous attempts had no legal weight. Thanks to this, again, the Constitution was written to be vauge, and therefor you cannot assume anything about it. Now, it may be your interpritation, that's one thing, but the Constitution, taken at face value, does not support it.
Wait, why is Lucas evil for not being associated with Hollywood? I think the word you're looking for is "notorious." ^_^
It doesn't matter though, Lucas broke down my moral barrier to not watching pirated movies, so Hollywood will inevitably suffer as well down the road. My moral code has been adjusted so that sometimes piracy is justified.
One reasonably expects one's communications to be private, whether it is by mail, telephone, or internet. Even large private meetings (private business teleconferences, etc.) have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
While you are correct when it comes to uses as e-mail, buisness transactions or internet telephones, I would say that posting in a public form or broadcasting your IP to a bunch of strangers for the purposes of swapping files kinda negates your expectation of privacy in this regard. The examples you described all have one thing in common, and that is they're point-to-point communications. Point-to-mass, as P2P is, is an entirely different animal.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
As you can see, the 4th Amendment does not say "The government shall not", instead, this seems to be an absolute statement.
HOWEVER, whose property is the information just floating in limbo out on the internet? The phone system isn't infested with spiders or bots that go out and collect every bit of data about everything on the network, nor is it nearly as open to that sort of thing. The Internet is a strange chimera of both private and public areas with lots of cross-over, and as blanket as the fourth amendment is, it is not well suited to handle this beast. Keep in mind, the Bill of Rights was actually written to be a bit ambiguous, so if you really want protection on this issue you have to push for an amendment to deal with the nuances of the information age.
I agree, and it was Episode I that killed hollywood movies for me. I actually went and saw that movie TWICE just to make sure I didn't accidentally miss the plot (Turns out I didn't, there was none) so after that I felt entitled to a free showing of Episode II, copyright laws be damned! (And it turns out that wasn't even worth the two hours of my life it took to watch)
This does raise the question, if piracy is so bad that it's causing artists to starve, why are DVD sales growing by leaps and bounds to the point where many movies make far more cash on that medium?
Now Microsoft itself is a convicted felon? And I didn't know the Republican party wanted strict socioeconomic control or a strong centrilized government, and last I checked it was mainly the left-wing organizations here doing the majority of the censoring. So, that leaves... nationalism. Fascism would be closer to US Democrats wrapping themselves in a flag. Common mistake though, most people think Hitler was a conservative and that he was politicaly alligned against Stalin. It's just not true at all.
Oh, and Homeland Security, that was the Democrat's idea, so can't pin that on the Republicans (even though Bush did a supurb job of adopting it as his own) and any Democrat running for office would kindly remind you of that. You can take issue with Guantanamo Bay, but keep in mind that is a minor "abuse" compared to what the US has done in the past during a time of war, so I'd hardly start yelling that the sky is falling. Our freedoms have survived far worse, so I am content to allow history to judge that. After all, our system was set up to be more flexible than usual in times of crisis. And with information, well, our laws are ill equiped to deal with the current technology, and our Constitution is now showing its age and should definately have a few amendments added to it, but until that happens, stuff like the TIA ain't a legal concern unless it's brought in front of an activist court, which are even worse in the long term even if they do the occasional "right thing" in the short. After all, a whole slew of laws can be eliminated with a single amendment, but an activist court system would take a lifetime to clear.
But the fact that people in France were using the phrase "e-mail" shows that, in deed, that is exactly how French works. However, the French government keeps stepping in to remove those words to keep the French language "pure". It's a bit like saying your hedges don't work by growing on their own despite the fact that you have to continuously trim them to keep their shape.
Well, the Bush administration did use the phrase "Decapitation Strike" for it's "Shock and Awe" campaign, and I think the US government reserves the term "assasination" for only those countries that the US has not declared open hostilities against (honestly, I think that's a reasonable definition). As for WMDs, it's a bit more descriptive than the term "Unconventional Weapon" is. I mean, I could kill someone with a slinky. Certainly the slinky, in such a case, could be considered an unconventional weapon, as one of the definitions for unconventional is "out of the ordinary". However, I think a better example than those you brought up would be replacing "suicide bomber" with "homicide bomber". Of course, the administration hasn't passed a law that requires all government documents to stop using the term "suicide bomber" and instead use "homicide bomber," so it still is different than what the French government is doing.
True, but I said "same heat properties" as the tiles, and since the ablative shielding boils off at those temps while the tiles don't, they must have different properties there.
Now you can argue that ablative is better, but that wasn't really the point of the shuttle. It was to have something that was cheap and reusable. Granted, NASA failed MISERABLY in this regard, but with that aim you can't really expect the skin to perform like a C-17's.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, if you're going to help a stab victim I would hope you'd either call 911 or yell to another person to call the number. Either case, there's already evidence you were there and trying to help, so what's the DNA going to do?
Actually, making sure ground forces don't wander into a fighter's killbox would be an even better start.
Alright, if you will not see a greener desert in the short term, then why is it happening RIGHT NOW? How is it an almost certainty that there will be less rain?
Due to global cooling, and the climate we have seen the last 10 millenia (which provided the most stable climate in earth history as far as we can tell), humanity prospered
Sure, if you ignore the fact that we were almost pushed to extinction because of the lack of available food in Africa. Global cooling is not the cause of our success, it was an obstacle that had to be overcome on our way to success. We're still tropical creatures, only unusually smart tropical creatures.
You are right however that the overwhelming majority of the environmental damage we do is on the local level, but that's not an arguement for solar power as it is for improved stewardship of fertile lands in third-world countries (The US is doing just fine at home, with more forests now than there were a hundred years ago).
Global cooling would make the deserts green
Yes, just like what the Ice Age did to all those sprawling forests in Africa! Oh wait, that turned them into deserts didn't it? Now, if you switched your instances of "Global Warming" with your instances of "Global Cooling", you'd be right about the environmental imapact, except for the skiing thing.
Yoshiko Takahashi is no environmental activist, but in the last year she has become an ardent fan of the solar panels that generate most of the electricity for her 1,100-square-foot home. Using solar power, which was included with the new house that she and her husband bought a little more than a year ago, has not only cut the family's electricity bill by 17 percent but also made her feel good about helping fight global warming.
Someone at the NYT needs a dictionary. Most > 50%
Actually, the increase in crop yields is a vaild point. Global warming is causing the deserts to actually become greener due to increased rain fall and higher levels of CO2. Remember, there were no deserts before global cooling.
So, a Tony Blair or a JFK wouldn't disclose that information, but a Hitler or a Stalin would??? You seem to be confusing all religious people with Pat Buchanan.
Not only bacteria. There are some species of crabs, fish and worms that are also completely cut off from solar energy. The bacteria is simply at the bottom of the food chain.
Well, if it's a steel bike at least you'd get plenty of iron in your diet.
Um, we do know what to do with by products of nuclear fission, it's just that when Carter was president he signed a presidential order banning the reclimation of spent fuel rods. Plus, if our youngest plants weren't 30 years old we'd be far more efficient and produce less waste. Japan and France seem to be doing just fine with 80% of their power being derived from nuclear sources.
So, we can't use oil because of air pollution
We can't use natural gas because we have to drill for it and build pipelines
We can't use nuclear because the tiny ammount of byproducts produced over time will be around for a long while.
We can't use dams because of local environmental concerns (yet we can put up with an over population of beavers doing the same thing)
We can't use wind because it'll kill endangered birds and the whole "Not in our backyard" mentality
We can't use tidal generators because it'll kill dolphins
That leaves us with solar... we're screwed!
Of course some ships ARE scuttled, yet you don't hear Greenpeace protesting, mainly because scuttled ships are used to grow reefs. Just make sure there's no oil in the hold and you're OK.
But there are plenty of people since Lowell who have seen them, and people continue to till this day. Even NASA was convinced they'd see something on Mars actually causing the channels when they sent Mariner, and you can't tell me they didn't have great telescopes at the time. They were somewhat surprised when the probe got there and they couldn't see anything remotely resembling canals. However, you need not break out a telescope and point it at the red planet to see this effect. Just get a group of people willing to draw. Then, take a white canvas and draw some black dots on it. Move the canvas a good distance away (just so they can just make out the dots) and have the people that you've drafted into this experiment draw. You'll be surprised at how many people draw lines connecting the points.
Actually, I didn't read it at all, as apparently my filter blew it away. Gomen.
Actually, many of the channels he observed were optical illusions caused by the brain trying to play "connect the dots", which is why on many of the early hand-drawn maps you see such perfectly straight lines criss-crossing the surface.
Excuse me, but you seem to be wanting to eat your cake and have it too. As the grandparent said, if you assemble on private property, you can be asked to leave and be forced to comply. If you take away the right of the owner of private property to expell guests that create a distrubance, then you are striping the owner of his rights to privacy. Thus, your inclusion of the current actions of the RIAA as something bad seems to run counter to your apparent claim that people should be allowed to gather wherever they damn well please.
Inherent rights? No, people have only the rights they can protect. As for "the government shall not" being implied, when the Constitution was written there was a big debate over whether or not it was necessary. Many saw it as pointless as previous attempts had no legal weight. Thanks to this, again, the Constitution was written to be vauge, and therefor you cannot assume anything about it. Now, it may be your interpritation, that's one thing, but the Constitution, taken at face value, does not support it.
Wait, why is Lucas evil for not being associated with Hollywood? I think the word you're looking for is "notorious." ^_^
It doesn't matter though, Lucas broke down my moral barrier to not watching pirated movies, so Hollywood will inevitably suffer as well down the road. My moral code has been adjusted so that sometimes piracy is justified.
One reasonably expects one's communications to be private, whether it is by mail, telephone, or internet. Even large private meetings (private business teleconferences, etc.) have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
While you are correct when it comes to uses as e-mail, buisness transactions or internet telephones, I would say that posting in a public form or broadcasting your IP to a bunch of strangers for the purposes of swapping files kinda negates your expectation of privacy in this regard. The examples you described all have one thing in common, and that is they're point-to-point communications. Point-to-mass, as P2P is, is an entirely different animal.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
As you can see, the 4th Amendment does not say "The government shall not", instead, this seems to be an absolute statement.
HOWEVER, whose property is the information just floating in limbo out on the internet? The phone system isn't infested with spiders or bots that go out and collect every bit of data about everything on the network, nor is it nearly as open to that sort of thing. The Internet is a strange chimera of both private and public areas with lots of cross-over, and as blanket as the fourth amendment is, it is not well suited to handle this beast. Keep in mind, the Bill of Rights was actually written to be a bit ambiguous, so if you really want protection on this issue you have to push for an amendment to deal with the nuances of the information age.
Didn't the fat guy eat the midget?
I agree, and it was Episode I that killed hollywood movies for me. I actually went and saw that movie TWICE just to make sure I didn't accidentally miss the plot (Turns out I didn't, there was none) so after that I felt entitled to a free showing of Episode II, copyright laws be damned! (And it turns out that wasn't even worth the two hours of my life it took to watch)
This does raise the question, if piracy is so bad that it's causing artists to starve, why are DVD sales growing by leaps and bounds to the point where many movies make far more cash on that medium?
Now Microsoft itself is a convicted felon? And I didn't know the Republican party wanted strict socioeconomic control or a strong centrilized government, and last I checked it was mainly the left-wing organizations here doing the majority of the censoring. So, that leaves... nationalism. Fascism would be closer to US Democrats wrapping themselves in a flag. Common mistake though, most people think Hitler was a conservative and that he was politicaly alligned against Stalin. It's just not true at all. Oh, and Homeland Security, that was the Democrat's idea, so can't pin that on the Republicans (even though Bush did a supurb job of adopting it as his own) and any Democrat running for office would kindly remind you of that. You can take issue with Guantanamo Bay, but keep in mind that is a minor "abuse" compared to what the US has done in the past during a time of war, so I'd hardly start yelling that the sky is falling. Our freedoms have survived far worse, so I am content to allow history to judge that. After all, our system was set up to be more flexible than usual in times of crisis. And with information, well, our laws are ill equiped to deal with the current technology, and our Constitution is now showing its age and should definately have a few amendments added to it, but until that happens, stuff like the TIA ain't a legal concern unless it's brought in front of an activist court, which are even worse in the long term even if they do the occasional "right thing" in the short. After all, a whole slew of laws can be eliminated with a single amendment, but an activist court system would take a lifetime to clear.
But the fact that people in France were using the phrase "e-mail" shows that, in deed, that is exactly how French works. However, the French government keeps stepping in to remove those words to keep the French language "pure". It's a bit like saying your hedges don't work by growing on their own despite the fact that you have to continuously trim them to keep their shape.
Well, the Bush administration did use the phrase "Decapitation Strike" for it's "Shock and Awe" campaign, and I think the US government reserves the term "assasination" for only those countries that the US has not declared open hostilities against (honestly, I think that's a reasonable definition). As for WMDs, it's a bit more descriptive than the term "Unconventional Weapon" is. I mean, I could kill someone with a slinky. Certainly the slinky, in such a case, could be considered an unconventional weapon, as one of the definitions for unconventional is "out of the ordinary". However, I think a better example than those you brought up would be replacing "suicide bomber" with "homicide bomber". Of course, the administration hasn't passed a law that requires all government documents to stop using the term "suicide bomber" and instead use "homicide bomber," so it still is different than what the French government is doing.
True, but I said "same heat properties" as the tiles, and since the ablative shielding boils off at those temps while the tiles don't, they must have different properties there.
Now you can argue that ablative is better, but that wasn't really the point of the shuttle. It was to have something that was cheap and reusable. Granted, NASA failed MISERABLY in this regard, but with that aim you can't really expect the skin to perform like a C-17's.