Ummmm...if your hard drive was open so that you could get blood IN TO it, you needed a new hard drive anyway. Those things are sealed for a reason, dude. Unless you were referring to your computer as a 'hard-drive', in which case, I'd like to put some of YOUR blood in to it.
That's what you get for using Quantum drives. (Cue fanboi abuse) Maybe it's just my luck, but I've seen more Quantum drives fail than any other brand. (I'm not even counting the Bigfoots in there; those problems have been well-documented) I used to bank on Seagates, but I've had a few of those fail recently. Anyone have brands they've had good luck with?
That's why I run raid 1/0 on a SAN. We can lose up to half our disks....as long as no two of them are a mirrored pair. Hot swapping is fast and easy, and you can even configure hot spares to replace failed drives until you get around to physically replacing them. That's what everyone should do, even for home use. Better yet, buy redundant SANs, just in case. SANs are great for backup-to-disk, too, if you use ATA enclosures/drives. SANs are not only cool, but they impress the ladies and also contribute to world peace. Everyone should own a few SANs! What do you mean, do I work for a company that sells SANs? What's that got to do with anything?
Hmm. Guess I can't string you along any more. You got me. I am guilty. Every logical fallacy you have ascribed to me, (almost), I have committed. Like I said, you provided some needed distraction at work. Still, I did pull you into a few yourself. I don't know if you'd admit it, but it's ok if you don't. I was going to continue, but you obviously put so much thought into that last reply that I couldn't bring myself to do it. I'm not sure whether I was afraid you wouldn't bother to respond... or that you would. Well played, sir, well played. Very few people hang more than 5 or 6 replies. Of course, I did it all logged in, like a man does. But that's ok, no one says you have to subscribe to my values. Not everyone can manage excellent karma while not using the karma bonus and while only posting logged in. Why, no, I didn't just break my arm patting myself on the back. I'm double-jointed.
I never said anything of the sort. My entire argument is that alien DNA (or whatever equivalent they have) is so unlikely to be naturally compatible with human DNA that it can be written off as impossible.
Who ever said anything about NATURAL compatibility? I have mentioned multiple times the possibility of manipulation. That would not be natural, thus you are moving the goal posts now that you have been exposed. Besides, I never said it was LIKELY, I said it wasn't impossible. You are claiming that (false dichotomy alert) if something doesn't occur naturally then it is impossible. Tell that to those apricot-plum hybrids I always see in the grocery store.
You said that the politics of Star Trek are impossible, not just unlikely. I'm just holding you to your own standard.
I did nothing of the sort. Here is my quote:
Every single time ever that socialism has been tried (outside of small communes), it has failed miserably due to human greed, laziness, and incompetence. Therefore it is reasonable to posit that utopian societies can not exist, unless a fundamental shift in human nature occurs.
Where in there did I say "impossible"? If that wasn't the quote you were referring to, please back up your statement.
You also seem to find technological solutions to be more palatable than social ones. Did it occur to you that socialist systems on earth have failed because they didn't solve the problem of scarcity?
Technological solutions are generally more reliable than societal ones. I prefer things which work. If that's your definition of palatable, then so be it. Did it occur to YOU that scarcity is hardly the only problem with communism? Ineptness and laziness as well as petty personal power struggles/politics have as much if not more to do with it.
In the Star Trek universe, they have replicators and nobody wants for anything. The problem of distribution of wealth may become a non-issue when technology allows everyone to have all they need.
And you think that freing people from the necessity to work would somehow cause them to WANT to work? Now, I'm not saying it's impossible, mind. I'm just wondering how you arrived at that conclusion.
I'll take that as an admission that you were bluffing, and you don't have a hand worth anything.
Why would you take it that way? Is that how you meant YOUR statement? Because I was merely echoing your statement.
Bah. "It COULD be true!!" Only in a magical universe - more hand-waving and wishful thinking. You're talking about something like drawing the same lottery number twice in a row from a pool of 10^1000 possibilities. If you find this plausible, you're beyond help.
And once again you are such the expert on alien unknown technology that you can compare it to known quantities. Why? Because you just know! The chances of you being correct are like the chances of writing the Great American Novel by throwing a typewriter down a hill. See? I can do that too.
Knowing the requirements of the problem doesn't require knowledge of a solution.
In other words, you are right no matter what even when you have absolutely no knowledge in the area in question. Nice.
Making an alien-human baby would basically require turning the human into an alien or vice versa, unless the genetic makeup of the aliens were already nearly human, a possibility we can already dismiss for obvious reasons.
Another false dichotomy. Unless x, y. Except that there are other possibilities. You just refuse to admit to them, and would have me believe that I have not admitted to them either.
Even you admitted that much.
I did not admit that it was the only solution, as you are implying. I did state that it would be unlikely for aliens to have similar DNA to humans, but I did not say it was impossible and I did not say that similar DNA is the only way humans and aliens could possibly breed. You are entirely leaving ou
Yes, the law is often slow to catch up to societal mores. For example, many studies have shown that over half of all high-school students have tried drugs. Others have shown that upwards of 40% of the population of the US has done illegal drugs. However, we still put millions of people in jail for using and selling drugs. Obviously, the law is not reflective of the mores of society in that regard.
Right. "x has never existed before, therefore x cannot exist." "People have always been x, so they can never be not x." Good logic.
I learned it by watching you. Remember, you said 'We have not been able to modify DNA, therefore it cannot be modified'. Besides, I didn't say people could never be x, I said that WITHOUT some sort of serious impetus, people wouldn't change. There's no fallacy there.
Come on, apply at least equal rigor to your own assertion as you did to the other guy's.
Back atcha, baby.
You still haven't explained how DNA manipulation (genetic engineering) could make interbreeding with aliens possible.
That's because I don't know. You still haven't explained why technology you've never seen cannot do what you don't want it to. I don't have to explain the actual mechanism, merely point out that we don't know the capabilities of unknown technology (which seems fairly obvious to me, but you're apparently having some trouble grasping the concept).
By assuming that it could, you are begging the question.
You are attempting to re-frame my argument such that it is easily bestable. That is known as the straw man fallacy. I simply stated that we CAN'T SAY what the capabilities of alien technology ARE OR ARE NOT. You are claiming that I made a definitive statement where none was made. I did not beg that particular question. I have in fact addressed it several times in this thread.
There's no reason to think the aliens would even have DNA!
And thus no way to know whether what they DO have would be compatible with our DNA or not. So, at every turn your arguments only serve to strengthen my position. I don't really need the help, but it is appreciated.
Not all dichotomies are false, you know. Still, you're right. That one was an appeal to humor rather than logos. Of course, that's why it missed you entirely.
Umm, okay. Every single time ever that socialism has been tried (outside of small communes), it has failed miserably due to human greed, laziness, and incompetence. Therefore it is reasonable to posit that utopian societies can not exist, unless a fundamental shift in human nature occurs. I find it far more believable that we will find technology to manipulate DNA than some way to manipulate human nature. Unless, of course, we find that genetics influences human nature, in which case their obvious change to human nature in the show indicates the ability to manipulate DNA, which then renders interbreeding with aliens more plausible. So, take your pick. Either the politics are absurd, or they are dead-on accurate, which points to the technological ability to manipulate DNA. Your choice.
Adultery WAS a crime. Nowadays it's mostly just cause for divorce. Under the same type of laws, homosexual activity used to be a crime. However, please note that the penalties for breaking the marriage contract are civil ones as well, even though the third party to that contract is the state. (or should I say State?) I find it hilarious that many people are opposed to polygamy, even though almost every married 'couple' is actually also married to the state. (That doesn't have anything to do with our discussion, however, I just find it funny.)
I want your friends. Mine will barely chip in for beer.
If someone is determined enough, legality doesn't matter. Should we do away with all laws?
Yes. Well, the VAST majority of them, anyhow. We currently have over 21million pages of laws in America. That's far too many. Especially considering that it's the civic duty of each citizen to know all these laws. I sincerely doubt that ANY U.S. citizen knows all the laws, including the judges who rule that ignorance of the law is no defense. I think we could pare it down to about, oh, 10 or so good laws.
But like I said, you got me wrong. I'm tired of the government telling me what to do. No laws, and a private army on every block! No more boring weekends! Paradise!
Except that it doesn't usually work that way. The 'Wild West', for example, really wasn't very wild.
That's what I had done for the two weeks I had to wait for them to get a tech out there. But I had to unplug it before he got there or I would get some bullshit charge for 'stealing' service. It's my contention that if you are piping something into my house without me asking, I shouldn't get charged for using it. However, my contentions rarely mean anything in the real world.
Well, it was awarded to Cintra first. Then NTTA tried to jack it, but it looks like Cintra will get it back.
On June 28, the Texas Transportation Commission, the final word on transportation issues in the state, ordered that the Regional Transportation Council and NTTA reach an agreement on the Highway 121 contract before Aug. 27 or else the contract would go to Cintra.
Looks like the Feds are upset over NTTA trying to upset the apple-cart. They have 5 days to change their minds or it goes (back) to Cintra. So that's 'umm...what'? I could be wrong, but I think it will end up going back to Cintra.
Your sentence would be MUCH better stated in this way: "I prefer vanilla ice cream cones." Think of it like this: would you ask "What is your favorite type of ice cream cones?" No, you would say, "What is your favorite type of ice cream?" or, "What is your favorite type of ice cream cone?" If you claim otherwise, you are lying. And, actually, you would probably use the incorrect 'kind' instead of 'type'.
1. Making it legal to own something is not the same as making that thing available. It is stupid to waste time creating laws which cover the sale of things no one will be able to afford anyway. Would you be able to finance a $3mil tank? I wouldn't. 2. If someone is determined enough, the legality of ownership does not matter. If it did, criminals would not be able to get guns and "criminals" would not be able to get drugs. Do you really think that someone who wanted a nuclear weapon for nefarious use would be stopped by its being illegal? No, of course not. They are stopped by its being scarce. If nuclear weapons and tanks were as affordable as compact cars, maybe. But they aren't. Also, the companies which MAKE tanks and nuclear bombs would be under no obligation to sell them simply because they were legally allowed to do so. It's funny, though, because we routinely sell such things to oppressive governments of other countries. I suppose it's OK for THEM to have, but not Americans....
Although, truly, I wouldn't mind so much if most people had assault rifles and pistols. It would probably make people more polite and considerate.
No, you wrote about fascism. What you MEANT to say and what you SAID were different, and I was just pointing that out. Because I agree with some of your views does not mean that I endorse your errors as well. Also, I did not use the tired "an x for y is a z for xx" argument, nor do I support it. Therefore it is not only not EXACTLY what you wrote, it is barely even related.
If I wrote exactly what you're sayin there and I'm a troll then...
Unfortunately for you, you forgot to add the relevant 'if not' statement, as your above 'if' has been demonstrated to be false.
No, no more than it is breaking the law if you cheat on your wife. You may face penalties, but that doesn't make the matter criminal. It's merely violating the stipulations of a contract.
Well, no, it couldn't - that's my point. If you are willing to brush aside all scientific plausibility, then you might as well make the entire Star Trek universe magical and have done with it. Actually, that's pretty much what the writers did; they just dressed up the magic with technical-sounding jargon.
See, here's my problem: You completely brush aside all the impossible politics on the show, and then balk at the scientific. You demand strict scientific accuracy, but don't care about the apparent fact that somehow, they made a cashless society work. My point is: if you're willing to believe that humans would work together on a universal level for no personal gain, you should be willing to believe that aliens can mate with humans. Besides, Spock wasn't the only half-human half-vulcan. That suggests to me that they found a way to make it happen...remember, please, that horniness is one of the most powerful drivers of technology there is. See: VCRs, DVDs, cable, and the internet. Where there's a will, there's a way.
I hope you're a troll... if not then you are a moron. Lincoln himself said that he would be happy if the union were restored without freeing a single slave.
Yeah, that's pretty right-on. Dell machines work just fine, once they're re-imaged. I find it telling that Dell's new small business offering uses a lack of bloatware and trialware as a SELLING POINT...considering that they were among the pioneers of that very movement, and the consumer machines still have it.
This is the problem which I have with your position. You are asking me to accept your authority over a situation which doesn't exist. Given what we know about aliens, they don't exist. Yet, if aliens DID exist, then "what we know" wouldn't be a very good measure, would it? Therefore it's useless to speculate about the capabilities of something with which we have absolutely no experience. I DID state that it would be unlikely, but I don't see where it would be impossible. Now, as to your analogy: Do you interact with aliens with the same regularity with which you interact with bowling balls? Your expectations for how bowling balls behave is based upon many factors with which you have familiarity. What I am saying is: how do you know that an alien bowling ball WOULDN'T go flying upward into space? Again, it might be unlikely, but it's stupid to place limits on that which is unknown. I'm not suggesting that technology would *magically* fix anything. However, to someone from ancient Greece, a car might very well seem like magic. Does that mean that a car 'magically' fixes transportation problems?
So, you're suggesting that an alien race could make a 'designer child' from alien DNA and human DNA? In what sense is that 'interbreeding' rather than 'engineering'? I don't believe this was ever suggested on the show as a solution. They just take for granted half-breed characters like Spock, with the implication that he was conceived the "old fashioned way."
No, I'm not suggesting that. I'm suggesting that we really can't say what the limits of alien technology would be, considering that we have absolutely no experience with it. Anything more is your attempt as straw-manning my argument. Please tell me how you know exactly what alien technology could or could not do. Then tell me why I am supposed to believe that you have knowledge no one else on Earth has.
I'll concede that aliens interbreeding doesn't technically violate any laws of physics, but I think you need to recognize just how implausible it is.
Aha! Here we reach the crux of the matter. I believe you need to read up on the difference between 'implausible' and 'impossible'. That should fix your problem. I never claimed it was plausible or even likely or anything like that. I simply claimed that it wasn't impossible. Have a great day!
Um. Okay. I guess they aren't mandatory. Unless, you know, you want to drive. Which nearly everyone in this country needs to do to survive. Why is entering a public park any more of a right than driving on the public highway?
1. Public transportation 2. Urban lifestyles (not everyone drives in New York City, for example) 3. Being really really rich
These exempt you from having to drive. There are other exceptions, but I figured three was enough.
To your second point: It isn't. However, you're looking at it the wrong way. Driver's licenses are not Federal. States can make you do whatever they want. The Federal government isn't supposed to prevent access to public highways, but the states can prevent access to state highways if they so desire. Our current system of traffic 'laws', though, is really not Constitutional. I mean, you didn't see people getting turned down for horse and carriage licenses, did you? State ID card? Sure, that's allowable under the Constitution. Federal ID card? NO WAY. That's why every SS card explicitly states that it may not be used for ID (even though it routinely is, even by the federal government). Of course, what's right and what's "allowed" and what's done routinely are three (seemingly) different things.
Both are on the list of acceptable forms of identification that the government requires all employers to check for immigration purposes when they hire a new employee.
No, you've missed the point on this one. The immigration check is for work eligibility, not identification. This was explained to you previously. Yes, sometimes the Feds DO use SS for ID purposes, but not THAT purpose. You must provide a Driver's License or similar document for identification (itself a corruption of the idea behind driver's licenses, but that's a seperate issue). If you only have a SS card, no job for you.
Good thing this attitude has never been widespread, or we'd never have any sort of technological progress.
Counterpoint: perhaps had this attitude been more widespread, nuclear weapons might still be theoretical. The Law of Unintended Consequences will NOT be denied.
The difference is simple. Driver's licenses aren't mandatory. They are required for driving but you are not required to have one. The REAL ID would be (as envisioned) mandatory. That is the difference. Happy to help!
.. but what are you FOR? You don't want a federal-approved ID, so what form of ID do you think is acceptable? Just anything a state feels like issuing? Should we even require a picture on it, or would that be too much of an imposition? If I'm an airport screener, can I reasonably be expected to recognize over 100 types of ID (driver's license or alternative ID from 50 states and every US territory/commonwealth) and be able to detect forgeries?
Do YOU expect an airport employee to be able to tell a forged REAL ID from a real REAL ID? Do YOU expect that it will be impossible to obtain a working REAL ID that is not your own? Why should an airport employee have to know who you are anyway? What the fuck business is it of anyone else who I am or where I'm going? I'm FOR everyone staying the hell out of my business.
Personally, I think the feds should just say that any any place under their control where ID is required, present your passport. That way the states wouldn't have a bitch about the cost, since they could just keep issuing their existing licenses, and the feds would have only one form of ID to worry about.
So airports are now under Federal control? STATE PARKS are now under Federal control? State borders are now under Federal control? You scare me. Why do we have this fascination with other people's business, anyway?
Slashdot Mirror
Ummmm...if your hard drive was open so that you could get blood IN TO it, you needed a new hard drive anyway. Those things are sealed for a reason, dude. Unless you were referring to your computer as a 'hard-drive', in which case, I'd like to put some of YOUR blood in to it.
Personally, I prefer Qlogic or Emulex for my HBAs. Maybe that's just me, though.
That's what you get for using Quantum drives. (Cue fanboi abuse)
Maybe it's just my luck, but I've seen more Quantum drives fail than any other brand. (I'm not even counting the Bigfoots in there; those problems have been well-documented)
I used to bank on Seagates, but I've had a few of those fail recently. Anyone have brands they've had good luck with?
That's why I run raid 1/0 on a SAN. We can lose up to half our disks....as long as no two of them are a mirrored pair. Hot swapping is fast and easy, and you can even configure hot spares to replace failed drives until you get around to physically replacing them. That's what everyone should do, even for home use. Better yet, buy redundant SANs, just in case. SANs are great for backup-to-disk, too, if you use ATA enclosures/drives. SANs are not only cool, but they impress the ladies and also contribute to world peace. Everyone should own a few SANs! What do you mean, do I work for a company that sells SANs? What's that got to do with anything?
Hmm. Guess I can't string you along any more. You got me. I am guilty. Every logical fallacy you have ascribed to me, (almost), I have committed. Like I said, you provided some needed distraction at work. Still, I did pull you into a few yourself. I don't know if you'd admit it, but it's ok if you don't. I was going to continue, but you obviously put so much thought into that last reply that I couldn't bring myself to do it. I'm not sure whether I was afraid you wouldn't bother to respond... or that you would. Well played, sir, well played. Very few people hang more than 5 or 6 replies. Of course, I did it all logged in, like a man does. But that's ok, no one says you have to subscribe to my values. Not everyone can manage excellent karma while not using the karma bonus and while only posting logged in. Why, no, I didn't just break my arm patting myself on the back. I'm double-jointed.
Who ever said anything about NATURAL compatibility? I have mentioned multiple times the possibility of manipulation. That would not be natural, thus you are moving the goal posts now that you have been exposed. Besides, I never said it was LIKELY, I said it wasn't impossible. You are claiming that (false dichotomy alert) if something doesn't occur naturally then it is impossible. Tell that to those apricot-plum hybrids I always see in the grocery store.
You said that the politics of Star Trek are impossible, not just unlikely. I'm just holding you to your own standard.
I did nothing of the sort. Here is my quote:
Where in there did I say "impossible"? If that wasn't the quote you were referring to, please back up your statement.
You also seem to find technological solutions to be more palatable than social ones. Did it occur to you that socialist systems on earth have failed because they didn't solve the problem of scarcity?
Technological solutions are generally more reliable than societal ones. I prefer things which work. If that's your definition of palatable, then so be it. Did it occur to YOU that scarcity is hardly the only problem with communism? Ineptness and laziness as well as petty personal power struggles/politics have as much if not more to do with it.
In the Star Trek universe, they have replicators and nobody wants for anything. The problem of distribution of wealth may become a non-issue when technology allows everyone to have all they need.
And you think that freing people from the necessity to work would somehow cause them to WANT to work? Now, I'm not saying it's impossible, mind. I'm just wondering how you arrived at that conclusion.
I'll take that as an admission that you were bluffing, and you don't have a hand worth anything.
Why would you take it that way? Is that how you meant YOUR statement? Because I was merely echoing your statement.
Bah. "It COULD be true!!" Only in a magical universe - more hand-waving and wishful thinking. You're talking about something like drawing the same lottery number twice in a row from a pool of 10^1000 possibilities. If you find this plausible, you're beyond help.
And once again you are such the expert on alien unknown technology that you can compare it to known quantities. Why? Because you just know! The chances of you being correct are like the chances of writing the Great American Novel by throwing a typewriter down a hill. See? I can do that too.
Knowing the requirements of the problem doesn't require knowledge of a solution.
In other words, you are right no matter what even when you have absolutely no knowledge in the area in question. Nice.
Making an alien-human baby would basically require turning the human into an alien or vice versa, unless the genetic makeup of the aliens were already nearly human, a possibility we can already dismiss for obvious reasons.
Another false dichotomy. Unless x, y. Except that there are other possibilities. You just refuse to admit to them, and would have me believe that I have not admitted to them either.
Even you admitted that much.
I did not admit that it was the only solution, as you are implying. I did state that it would be unlikely for aliens to have similar DNA to humans, but I did not say it was impossible and I did not say that similar DNA is the only way humans and aliens could possibly breed. You are entirely leaving ou
Yes, the law is often slow to catch up to societal mores. For example, many studies have shown that over half of all high-school students have tried drugs. Others have shown that upwards of 40% of the population of the US has done illegal drugs. However, we still put millions of people in jail for using and selling drugs. Obviously, the law is not reflective of the mores of society in that regard.
Right. "x has never existed before, therefore x cannot exist." "People have always been x, so they can never be not x." Good logic.
I learned it by watching you. Remember, you said 'We have not been able to modify DNA, therefore it cannot be modified'. Besides, I didn't say people could never be x, I said that WITHOUT some sort of serious impetus, people wouldn't change. There's no fallacy there.
Come on, apply at least equal rigor to your own assertion as you did to the other guy's.
Back atcha, baby.
You still haven't explained how DNA manipulation (genetic engineering) could make interbreeding with aliens possible.
That's because I don't know. You still haven't explained why technology you've never seen cannot do what you don't want it to. I don't have to explain the actual mechanism, merely point out that we don't know the capabilities of unknown technology (which seems fairly obvious to me, but you're apparently having some trouble grasping the concept).
By assuming that it could, you are begging the question.
You are attempting to re-frame my argument such that it is easily bestable. That is known as the straw man fallacy. I simply stated that we CAN'T SAY what the capabilities of alien technology ARE OR ARE NOT. You are claiming that I made a definitive statement where none was made. I did not beg that particular question. I have in fact addressed it several times in this thread.
There's no reason to think the aliens would even have DNA!
And thus no way to know whether what they DO have would be compatible with our DNA or not. So, at every turn your arguments only serve to strengthen my position. I don't really need the help, but it is appreciated.
False dichotomy, black-and-white thinking, disqualified.
Not all dichotomies are false, you know. Still, you're right. That one was an appeal to humor rather than logos. Of course, that's why it missed you entirely.
...to the possibility that it isn't a hole? Maybe someone shot Rosie O'Donnell into space, and she's just blocking out the stars in that area.
Umm, okay. Every single time ever that socialism has been tried (outside of small communes), it has failed miserably due to human greed, laziness, and incompetence. Therefore it is reasonable to posit that utopian societies can not exist, unless a fundamental shift in human nature occurs. I find it far more believable that we will find technology to manipulate DNA than some way to manipulate human nature. Unless, of course, we find that genetics influences human nature, in which case their obvious change to human nature in the show indicates the ability to manipulate DNA, which then renders interbreeding with aliens more plausible. So, take your pick. Either the politics are absurd, or they are dead-on accurate, which points to the technological ability to manipulate DNA. Your choice.
Adultery WAS a crime. Nowadays it's mostly just cause for divorce. Under the same type of laws, homosexual activity used to be a crime. However, please note that the penalties for breaking the marriage contract are civil ones as well, even though the third party to that contract is the state. (or should I say State?) I find it hilarious that many people are opposed to polygamy, even though almost every married 'couple' is actually also married to the state. (That doesn't have anything to do with our discussion, however, I just find it funny.)
If you have the money, you can buy anything.
That's kinda my point.
Not many folks can afford their own tank, but it's a long way from "nobody".
I submit that the intersection of 'who can afford' and 'who wants to spend money on a tank' is small.
Hey, it's even within reach of ordinary working folks if they get a few friends to chip in.
The cost of a new M1A2 tank is approximately $4.3 million.
I want your friends. Mine will barely chip in for beer.
If someone is determined enough, legality doesn't matter. Should we do away with all laws?
Yes. Well, the VAST majority of them, anyhow. We currently have over 21million pages of laws in America. That's far too many. Especially considering that it's the civic duty of each citizen to know all these laws. I sincerely doubt that ANY U.S. citizen knows all the laws, including the judges who rule that ignorance of the law is no defense. I think we could pare it down to about, oh, 10 or so good laws.
But like I said, you got me wrong. I'm tired of the government telling me what to do. No laws, and a private army on every block! No more boring weekends! Paradise!
Except that it doesn't usually work that way. The 'Wild West', for example, really wasn't very wild.
That's what I had done for the two weeks I had to wait for them to get a tech out there. But I had to unplug it before he got there or I would get some bullshit charge for 'stealing' service. It's my contention that if you are piping something into my house without me asking, I shouldn't get charged for using it. However, my contentions rarely mean anything in the real world.
Dallas Morning News
Looks like the Feds are upset over NTTA trying to upset the apple-cart. They have 5 days to change their minds or it goes (back) to Cintra. So that's 'umm...what'? I could be wrong, but I think it will end up going back to Cintra.
http://salcostello.blogspot.com/2006/03/cintra-gr
Cintra is going to own not only some existing toll roads including 121, and the TTC, now they're talking about this train system.
Your sentence would be MUCH better stated in this way: "I prefer vanilla ice cream cones." Think of it like this: would you ask "What is your favorite type of ice cream cones?" No, you would say, "What is your favorite type of ice cream?" or, "What is your favorite type of ice cream cone?" If you claim otherwise, you are lying. And, actually, you would probably use the incorrect 'kind' instead of 'type'.
My point is twofold:
1. Making it legal to own something is not the same as making that thing available. It is stupid to waste time creating laws which cover the sale of things no one will be able to afford anyway. Would you be able to finance a $3mil tank? I wouldn't.
2. If someone is determined enough, the legality of ownership does not matter. If it did, criminals would not be able to get guns and "criminals" would not be able to get drugs. Do you really think that someone who wanted a nuclear weapon for nefarious use would be stopped by its being illegal? No, of course not. They are stopped by its being scarce. If nuclear weapons and tanks were as affordable as compact cars, maybe. But they aren't. Also, the companies which MAKE tanks and nuclear bombs would be under no obligation to sell them simply because they were legally allowed to do so. It's funny, though, because we routinely sell such things to oppressive governments of other countries. I suppose it's OK for THEM to have, but not Americans....
Although, truly, I wouldn't mind so much if most people had assault rifles and pistols. It would probably make people more polite and considerate.
which is of course exactly what I wrote.
No, you wrote about fascism. What you MEANT to say and what you SAID were different, and I was just pointing that out. Because I agree with some of your views does not mean that I endorse your errors as well. Also, I did not use the tired "an x for y is a z for xx" argument, nor do I support it. Therefore it is not only not EXACTLY what you wrote, it is barely even related.
If I wrote exactly what you're sayin there and I'm a troll then...
Unfortunately for you, you forgot to add the relevant 'if not' statement, as your above 'if' has been demonstrated to be false.
No, no more than it is breaking the law if you cheat on your wife. You may face penalties, but that doesn't make the matter criminal. It's merely violating the stipulations of a contract.
Well, no, it couldn't - that's my point. If you are willing to brush aside all scientific plausibility, then you might as well make the entire Star Trek universe magical and have done with it. Actually, that's pretty much what the writers did; they just dressed up the magic with technical-sounding jargon.
See, here's my problem: You completely brush aside all the impossible politics on the show, and then balk at the scientific. You demand strict scientific accuracy, but don't care about the apparent fact that somehow, they made a cashless society work. My point is: if you're willing to believe that humans would work together on a universal level for no personal gain, you should be willing to believe that aliens can mate with humans. Besides, Spock wasn't the only half-human half-vulcan. That suggests to me that they found a way to make it happen...remember, please, that horniness is one of the most powerful drivers of technology there is. See: VCRs, DVDs, cable, and the internet. Where there's a will, there's a way.
I hope you're a troll... if not then you are a moron. Lincoln himself said that he would be happy if the union were restored without freeing a single slave.
Yeah, that's pretty right-on. Dell machines work just fine, once they're re-imaged. I find it telling that Dell's new small business offering uses a lack of bloatware and trialware as a SELLING POINT...considering that they were among the pioneers of that very movement, and the consumer machines still have it.
So, given what we know about genetics,
This is the problem which I have with your position. You are asking me to accept your authority over a situation which doesn't exist. Given what we know about aliens, they don't exist. Yet, if aliens DID exist, then "what we know" wouldn't be a very good measure, would it? Therefore it's useless to speculate about the capabilities of something with which we have absolutely no experience. I DID state that it would be unlikely, but I don't see where it would be impossible.
Now, as to your analogy: Do you interact with aliens with the same regularity with which you interact with bowling balls? Your expectations for how bowling balls behave is based upon many factors with which you have familiarity. What I am saying is: how do you know that an alien bowling ball WOULDN'T go flying upward into space? Again, it might be unlikely, but it's stupid to place limits on that which is unknown. I'm not suggesting that technology would *magically* fix anything. However, to someone from ancient Greece, a car might very well seem like magic. Does that mean that a car 'magically' fixes transportation problems?
So, you're suggesting that an alien race could make a 'designer child' from alien DNA and human DNA? In what sense is that 'interbreeding' rather than 'engineering'? I don't believe this was ever suggested on the show as a solution. They just take for granted half-breed characters like Spock, with the implication that he was conceived the "old fashioned way."
No, I'm not suggesting that. I'm suggesting that we really can't say what the limits of alien technology would be, considering that we have absolutely no experience with it. Anything more is your attempt as straw-manning my argument. Please tell me how you know exactly what alien technology could or could not do. Then tell me why I am supposed to believe that you have knowledge no one else on Earth has.
I'll concede that aliens interbreeding doesn't technically violate any laws of physics, but I think you need to recognize just how implausible it is.
Aha! Here we reach the crux of the matter. I believe you need to read up on the difference between 'implausible' and 'impossible'. That should fix your problem. I never claimed it was plausible or even likely or anything like that. I simply claimed that it wasn't impossible. Have a great day!
Um. Okay. I guess they aren't mandatory. Unless, you know, you want to drive. Which nearly everyone in this country needs to do to survive. Why is entering a public park any more of a right than driving on the public highway?
1. Public transportation
2. Urban lifestyles (not everyone drives in New York City, for example)
3. Being really really rich
These exempt you from having to drive. There are other exceptions, but I figured three was enough.
To your second point:
It isn't. However, you're looking at it the wrong way. Driver's licenses are not Federal. States can make you do whatever they want. The Federal government isn't supposed to prevent access to public highways, but the states can prevent access to state highways if they so desire. Our current system of traffic 'laws', though, is really not Constitutional. I mean, you didn't see people getting turned down for horse and carriage licenses, did you? State ID card? Sure, that's allowable under the Constitution. Federal ID card? NO WAY. That's why every SS card explicitly states that it may not be used for ID (even though it routinely is, even by the federal government). Of course, what's right and what's "allowed" and what's done routinely are three (seemingly) different things.
Both are on the list of acceptable forms of identification that the government requires all employers to check for immigration purposes when they hire a new employee.
No, you've missed the point on this one. The immigration check is for work eligibility, not identification. This was explained to you previously. Yes, sometimes the Feds DO use SS for ID purposes, but not THAT purpose. You must provide a Driver's License or similar document for identification (itself a corruption of the idea behind driver's licenses, but that's a seperate issue). If you only have a SS card, no job for you.
Good thing this attitude has never been widespread, or we'd never have any sort of technological progress.
Counterpoint: perhaps had this attitude been more widespread, nuclear weapons might still be theoretical. The Law of Unintended Consequences will NOT be denied.
The difference is simple. Driver's licenses aren't mandatory. They are required for driving but you are not required to have one. The REAL ID would be (as envisioned) mandatory. That is the difference. Happy to help!
.. but what are you FOR? You don't want a federal-approved ID, so what form of ID do you think is acceptable? Just anything a state feels like issuing? Should we even require a picture on it, or would that be too much of an imposition? If I'm an airport screener, can I reasonably be expected to recognize over 100 types of ID (driver's license or alternative ID from 50 states and every US territory/commonwealth) and be able to detect forgeries?
Do YOU expect an airport employee to be able to tell a forged REAL ID from a real REAL ID? Do YOU expect that it will be impossible to obtain a working REAL ID that is not your own? Why should an airport employee have to know who you are anyway? What the fuck business is it of anyone else who I am or where I'm going? I'm FOR everyone staying the hell out of my business.
Personally, I think the feds should just say that any any place under their control where ID is required, present your passport. That way the states wouldn't have a bitch about the cost, since they could just keep issuing their existing licenses, and the feds would have only one form of ID to worry about.
So airports are now under Federal control? STATE PARKS are now under Federal control? State borders are now under Federal control?
You scare me. Why do we have this fascination with other people's business, anyway?