If you are caught possessing over a certain amount, it can create a statutory presumption (depending on the applicable law) of intent to distribute. A presumption means that this is something that, absent evidence to the contrary (generally a clear-and-convincing standard, or perhaps preponderance. Again, it depends on the law), the State does not have to affirmatively prove. For instance, let's say that possession of Sprite is criminalized, and possession of over a six-pack of Sprite creates a presumption of intent to distribute. You get caught with a case. If you can show, through evidence, that you intended to consume all of the Sprite yourself, you'd have rebutted that presumption.
You're not "automatically guilty" of anything. The reason why this is so that possession of a large amount of a substance is itself evidence of an intent to distribute. It may not always be the case, but the Legislatures have deemed that it is often enough the case that intent ought to be presumed unless you can show otherwise. This doesn't violate due process because intent is only one element of the crime, and the State must still prove the other elements beyond a reasonable doubt.
(1) Court costs can be assessed against the "loser" in a case, usually at the judge's discretion.
(2) Any idiot can sue for anything; that doesn't mean they win
(3) If this is a character defamation suit, then the author is going to have prove that the reviewer had actual malice, meaning a knowing or reckless disregard for the truth.
(4) Therefore, such a suit will fail on the merits if it does not get thrown out on summary judgment.
Naturalism isn't testable. Both M-naturalism and O-naturalism are philosophical theses that relate to the practice of science, but the question of their right or wrongness is dealt with in the philosophy of science.
Science, or more properly empirical science, doesn't "account" for real entities. It's not equipped to even meaningfully respond to the question "what is real?" That's a metaphysical question, and by definition, all metaphysics is non-empirical. Science isn't in the business of telling you, for a metaphysical fact, whether electrons exist. Scientific theories may posit them, and it's only the utility of those theories that empirical science can confirm. What you are willing to accept as your ontological commitment is a personal matter.
Wrong. Intelligent design is a thesis, a philosophical position. It's not testable. Hypotheses have to be testable. Intelligent design, or a teleological argument as it is more properly called, basically says that because of the complexity of objects in the world, such objects could only come about as the result of creation rather than natural processes.
I for one welcome our laser-wielding Soviet Russian overlords with a Beowulf cluster of goggles that do nothing against Natalie Portman covered in hot grits making the first post on a duped story about the Cowboy Neal option for polls.
The original poster didn't want to play games. He wanted to run Linux on the hardware. He's free to make a dual-screen touch screen Linux only device and not run afoul of the patent.
Yes smoothing is on. I said it doesn't look "improved," meaning it looks about the same as it did on my PS2. I don't mean it looks bad by any stretch, just that it looks like your regular old PS2 game. For the record, this is on a 50" LCD projection screen at 1080i.
Upscaling is only limited to HD in the case of DVDs, and that's because of the HDCP stuff. For games, they will upscale over component. And off-hand, I'd say that the upscaling does have its benefits. The cut scenes in FF12 look great on my PS3, even though the standard game footage shows no improvement at all. Rogue Galaxy looks better all around.
Why is quoting Quine (which says nothing about whether I agree with him) and saying that I generally call myself a supervenient materialist silly? As for your bibliography, I'd probably drop the Dennett. Not much to be gained there; the time would be better spent reading a good anthology, or possibly some Kim (if only to laugh at him. Haha, silly Jaegwon.)
My quoting of Quine (who I find interesting epistemologically, although I really don't agree with him beyond the Quine-Duhem Thesis) somehow puts me at odds with supervenient materialism as a view on the nature of consciousness? How?
(1) "Qualia" generally refers to "what it is like" for you to experience something. Every experience you have has its qualitative component, called a "quale" in the singular. So when you take a hallucinogen, the hallucinations you experience still have a qualitative component.
(2) If you're asking whether there's a phenomenal difference (difference in quality) between a hallucination and a "real" experience (veridical perception), well, I would say yes, and it's more than just the fact that one has a real referent (and the other is imaginary). But this is by no means an uncontroverted area in philosophy. See here for more.
(3) If your drug doesn't produce any experience at all (it's psychoactively inert) then, it wouldn't produce any novel qualia, because there'd be no novel experience to go along with ingesting the drug.
Qualia refers to the subjective features of consciousness, which are not reducible to a naturalistic explanation. In the philosophy of mind (oooh, scary, not hard sciences!) it's used to refer to something that physicalists and reductive materialists have a hard time explaining. Myself, I'm a supervenient physicalist, meaning I think that consciousness supervenes on the physical, but cannot be explained by, reference to physical laws alone. Consciousness, and the study of it, inhabits its own scientific sphere that is not reducible to physics or biology or some other "basic" science.
So before you lecture me on treating consciousness like some "transcendental mystical metaphysical drug hallucination," you might consider that I know what I'm talking about, because I've read much on the subject of consciousness and the philosophy of mind, and tailor your responses accordingly.
Really? I personally blame conservativism's traditionalist and nationalistic jingoism, which eschews science and logic in favor of faith and soundbites.
In other words, everything you said was complete bullshit.
I think that kids shows today are less about "learning" in the traditional sense and more about teaching (very worthy) goals of tolerance and acceptance.
I just don't see why we can't teach both, at once. Human knowledge and education is the great equalizer... virtually no prejudice or societal ill can't be cured by a good education.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, yes, but I'd recommend against that. :) You might try calling a witness and putting on testimony, or testify yourself. Testimony is evidence.
but now the laws have been incrementally changed to the point where just over one usage is consider proof, yes proof not intent, of dealing.What laws, please? I'm going to be a prosecutor in less than a year. I'd really like to know about this great boon to my profession.
If you are caught possessing over a certain amount, it can create a statutory presumption (depending on the applicable law) of intent to distribute. A presumption means that this is something that, absent evidence to the contrary (generally a clear-and-convincing standard, or perhaps preponderance. Again, it depends on the law), the State does not have to affirmatively prove. For instance, let's say that possession of Sprite is criminalized, and possession of over a six-pack of Sprite creates a presumption of intent to distribute. You get caught with a case. If you can show, through evidence, that you intended to consume all of the Sprite yourself, you'd have rebutted that presumption.
You're not "automatically guilty" of anything. The reason why this is so that possession of a large amount of a substance is itself evidence of an intent to distribute. It may not always be the case, but the Legislatures have deemed that it is often enough the case that intent ought to be presumed unless you can show otherwise. This doesn't violate due process because intent is only one element of the crime, and the State must still prove the other elements beyond a reasonable doubt.
(2) Any idiot can sue for anything; that doesn't mean they win
(3) If this is a character defamation suit, then the author is going to have prove that the reviewer had actual malice, meaning a knowing or reckless disregard for the truth.
(4) Therefore, such a suit will fail on the merits if it does not get thrown out on summary judgment.
Science, or more properly empirical science, doesn't "account" for real entities. It's not equipped to even meaningfully respond to the question "what is real?" That's a metaphysical question, and by definition, all metaphysics is non-empirical. Science isn't in the business of telling you, for a metaphysical fact, whether electrons exist. Scientific theories may posit them, and it's only the utility of those theories that empirical science can confirm. What you are willing to accept as your ontological commitment is a personal matter.
Yes. You get it. +1. Yours.
Wrong. Intelligent design is a thesis, a philosophical position. It's not testable. Hypotheses have to be testable. Intelligent design, or a teleological argument as it is more properly called, basically says that because of the complexity of objects in the world, such objects could only come about as the result of creation rather than natural processes.
I for one welcome our laser-wielding Soviet Russian overlords with a Beowulf cluster of goggles that do nothing against Natalie Portman covered in hot grits making the first post on a duped story about the Cowboy Neal option for polls.
The original poster didn't want to play games. He wanted to run Linux on the hardware. He's free to make a dual-screen touch screen Linux only device and not run afoul of the patent.
Yes smoothing is on. I said it doesn't look "improved," meaning it looks about the same as it did on my PS2. I don't mean it looks bad by any stretch, just that it looks like your regular old PS2 game. For the record, this is on a 50" LCD projection screen at 1080i.
Upscaling is only limited to HD in the case of DVDs, and that's because of the HDCP stuff. For games, they will upscale over component. And off-hand, I'd say that the upscaling does have its benefits. The cut scenes in FF12 look great on my PS3, even though the standard game footage shows no improvement at all. Rogue Galaxy looks better all around.
Social Darwinism much?
Why is quoting Quine (which says nothing about whether I agree with him) and saying that I generally call myself a supervenient materialist silly? As for your bibliography, I'd probably drop the Dennett. Not much to be gained there; the time would be better spent reading a good anthology, or possibly some Kim (if only to laugh at him. Haha, silly Jaegwon.)
My quoting of Quine (who I find interesting epistemologically, although I really don't agree with him beyond the Quine-Duhem Thesis) somehow puts me at odds with supervenient materialism as a view on the nature of consciousness? How?
Read Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason."
But here's a start with Internet-only sources. I'd suggest hitting up your local bookstore. That is, if philosophy isn't too scary and wordy.
(2) If you're asking whether there's a phenomenal difference (difference in quality) between a hallucination and a "real" experience (veridical perception), well, I would say yes, and it's more than just the fact that one has a real referent (and the other is imaginary). But this is by no means an uncontroverted area in philosophy. See here for more.
(3) If your drug doesn't produce any experience at all (it's psychoactively inert) then, it wouldn't produce any novel qualia, because there'd be no novel experience to go along with ingesting the drug.
So before you lecture me on treating consciousness like some "transcendental mystical metaphysical drug hallucination," you might consider that I know what I'm talking about, because I've read much on the subject of consciousness and the philosophy of mind, and tailor your responses accordingly.
You quote Feyerabend then you ask what happened to empiricism? You quote Feyerabend and then whine about pseudoscience? Hm.
Except for, you know, qualia.
You do know that water is composed of oxygen, right?
In other words, everything you said was complete bullshit.
I just don't see why we can't teach both, at once. Human knowledge and education is the great equalizer... virtually no prejudice or societal ill can't be cured by a good education.
All these mod points and there's not a -1 : Patent Troll option. Boo.
I used My-Girlfriend-Got-On-Ebay and got me one for Christmas. Now she won't stop playing Cooking Mama on it. Somehow, I feel bamboozled.