Wasn't this pretty predictable? I can't see how anyone participating in these protests could have imagined that they would be allowed to stay indefinitely without getting rousted by the cops. It's a form of civil disobedience. What is the point of arguing about whether DHS and FBI are involved, about details of the law, about various mayors' secret motivations, etc.? If you do civil disobedience, you expect to get hauled off to jail.
Actually, it is only civil disobedience if you ignore the order to vacate. However, even those who did vacate were arrested outside the park as they were leaving. So, yes, once lawfully ordered to leave, some did refuse the order and were arrested. Many more were arrested, however, that had already left.
As for DHS and FBI involvement, it matters, because it is limited federal resources being applied to local problems. Again, the only law being broken was for the failure to leave when told to do so. The FBI and DHS involvement occurred prior to this. Is it really the role of government police authority to be used on citizens when no federal laws are being violated?
The irony is that people camping out in the park may be an embarrassment to city officials, but doesn't cost them much. Arresting and processing them through the legal system is a whole different story.
I'm just curious how much the FBI and DHS involvement cost the taxpayers? I know I sure feel safer knowing that limited resources are being spent to protect us from peaceful protestors camped out in city parks.
Actually, if people have their own tablets and phones, what's stopping them from taking their own adult films on board. A plane is not the proper place to be watching a porn movie. That movie could easily be seen by the person beside you, behind you, or just someone walking down the aisle.
Airlines can't profit from it if you bring it yourself. They want to distribute and sell the porn.
My point was that while you claim christians are being trampled on it seems to me, at least in the US, it is the christians doing the trampling. Just because you have decided that evangelicals are less christian and your flavor is more christian, the trampling remains.
I never said that evangelicals are less christian than anyone else. However, the evangelical right is the group you tend to hear about the most as they are very vocal. My point being that in a country that the 76% of people call them self christian (2008), making generalizations on them based on one group or another is not accurate. Evangelicals as a group represent 26% of the population, but that is all evangelicals, not some organized group with the same ideology. The next group are Roman Catholics with 23% and then mainline Protestants with 18%.
Of those top three, only a portion of the evangelicals claim creationism as what is correct. So, if only a minority of christians hold that believe, why lump all the others in with them?
As for being trampled on, those were not my words. However, if one is being politically correct, then you can't bash Jews and you can't bash Muslims, but for some reason bashing Christians is acceptable. That seems inconsistent in a country that professes freedom of speech and religion.
For the record, I am not even christian, but some of my friends are and none of them support the issues you list.
I always find it deeply amusing when bullies play the victim card.
- school prayer - one nation, under god - in god we trust - commandments in the courts - opening prayer in congress - christmas and easter notional holidays
The problem is that what you list is the based on the agenda of right wing Evangelicals. There are many more christian denominations and groups in the US that do not push those items. With regards to the original topic on the debate, Haught is roman catholic and none of those items apply to the catholic church. Just as not all Muslims are terrorists, not all Christians are extremists.
According to the summary, siri is a google killer and makes apple the best smartphone platform.
For those assumptions to be true, that means that siri has to be something that people want. While I admit there is a somewhat star trekian cool factor by talking to your phone. On*Star has had similar features. Ford's respond to voice commands and read text messages, etc. And yet, people aren't dumping their current cars for these must have features.
Granted siri is beyond the capabilities of On*Star and the like, but does the public really want to use a phone where you say everything out load for everybody around you to hear, too?
User on subway: Read Text Message. Phone: From Sharon, I think it's time we move on and see other people. User on subway: Damn. Other riders on subway: Awwwww.
Don't get me wrong, there are times that this would be useful, but is it a necessity? If not, then how will it kill google ?
In the case you state, the contract was to show the comic in the paper. That did not occur. The contract at the University was to hold a debate and to allow it to be recorded as are most public events at the University. It did not specify that it would be shown. Even Coyne has admitted that. However, it is all moot now as the video has been released.
They didn't agree to have it released beforehand. They agreed to allow it to be recorded. However, it is now a mute point as the video has been released.
Watching the video and reading the letter do give a fairly reasonable opposite view from the last article, that has nothing to do with the merits of science or religion. But, ya know, you would have thought a Christian would have turned the other cheek, forgiven his enemy and just released the damn video to get his message across. Christians never seem to remember the forgiveness thing.
Being Christian doesn't mean you have to accept being trampled on. Christians have rights, too.
...but debating these people only give them credibility they do not deserve. The people who believe in creationism will never be swayed away from it, because their reasons for believing in it it are not the same as ours are for believing evolution. It is not out of an attempt to explain nature and the universe, but an egotistical need to be above it. Being descended from primates is offensive to them because they see the sum of humanity as being a jumble of biological components, rather than our arts and sciences. No wonder: religion has usually opposed arts and sciences until they gained enough traction to threaten the religion itself should it resist further.
It's time for religion to be closed out from the scientific debate altogether. "Faith" has no place in a field based on empirical evidence and doubt. Creationism doesn't even deserve a title as a discredited theory, it belongs with mythology like Atlantis and elves, and should rightly be laughed at with impunity.
Haught is not a creationist and the debate wasn't about creationism. Haught is Catholic and the Catholic Church is one of the largest funders of scientific research. There are many Jesuit (Catholic) Universities in this country that do marvelous research in all areas of science. Even though I am not a Catholic, I do see the contributions they make in research. It seems that in a country that values free speech, proposing that any group be censured or silenced is hypocritical.
Aparently god is not siding with the theologin on this one. LMAO he suppressed the video because he knew he was beat. And yet people like this still hang on to their belief system (for dear life) even when they have been bested in a fair debate (conquered by logic).
You must not have watched the video. Haught came across very reasonable. Coyne on the other hand was very obnoxious and didn't even stay on topic, but kept using strawman arguments. In the end, I am quite confident that those who believe in God still do and those who don't still don't.
Whether there was a legally binding agreement for them to show the video is a matter of fact that goes beyond the permission agreement, and gets into what was said and what the general practice is. I don't think either of us know enough of the facts to say one way or another.
The fact that the University owns the rights to the video does not preclude them from having entered into a verbal agreement to show the video.
Unless that verbal agreement specified when, where and how the video was to have been shown, then it is unenforceable. Maybe the University will show it on the 50th anniversary of the debate. In addition, to have a claim, you have to show some sort of harm. The two individuals were contracted (paid) to have the debate. A verbal agreement is not the same as a legal contract. The court will go by what the contract signed by the parties says. Plus, there is no evidence that a verbal agreement to show the video ever existed. There was an agreement for the university to record the debate.
This is no different than if David Letterman interviews me to air on TV tonight, but they change the lineup and my segment doesn't air. The Letterman show cannot be compelled to broadcast my interview at a later date. They may if they want to, but, since they own the rights to it, it is up to them. Likewise with the University. They recorded a live exchange between two people, with their permission. However, there is no legal basis to compel the University to "broadcast" their recording regardless of what you or I may want or think.
Whether there was an implicit agreement to post the video would be a matter of fact to be found by the jury. From what I've seen stated, I think an argument can be made that such an agreement was implicit in the other explicitly stated terms of their negotiations. It does depend on just what was said, but there can be implicit terms to a verbal agreement.
The University recorded it so it could show it to those who could not attend. There is no question that the University owns the "rights" to the video. The reason they needed the permission of the debaters was that without it, they could not legally show it. Having their permission, however, does not require them to show it or release it.
The compatibility of Religion and Evolution which actually makes Haught even more suited to the debate.
But again, at least as viewed by the Catholic Church, evolution and religion are not incompatible. Something about God created man and evolution is how he went about doing it. Actually, the pope didn't state that evolution is accepted science and does not actually change that God created all of this.
The Catholic Church does not hold that creation stories in Genesis are literal accounts of creation. So it would seam that a Catholic Theologian and an evolutionary scientist (whether Atheist or not) would be in agreement on a discussion regarding evolution. Now, if the discussion went in the direction of whether God existed or not, that seems to be out of the realm of a scientific discussion in the first place (can't be proven or disproven).
Religion and science is actually a dangerous area to broach, not because of religion, but if one views religion as just another philosophy, then the argument can be construed that science always trumps philosophy. The problem with that is that science, by it's very nature, is amoral and such a position can lead to science/technology regardless of the cost (economic or human). In addition, to take that approach to it's extreme, then we should only listen to scientists on matters of what should be done (doctors for medical decisions, economists for the economy, generals for military, etc.) Such a position implies that the individual doesn't count (since that would be a philosophical point and not a scientific point).
Most scientists or even atheists would not take such an approach with any other philosophy than religion. But, scientifically, why should religion be singled out?
IANAL, but, the University owns the video, not Coyne and it is theirs to do with as they please. There was no agreement with the parties involved that they would have access to the video.
I'm confused. What exactly did they debate? Haught is a Catholic theologian and the Catholic Church is not one of the creationist religions. The late Pope John Paul even publicly endorsed evolution. So what exactly did they debate about?
Maybe they should ask Whirpool. We purchased an electric water heater by them about 5 years ago that learns your water usage pattern and then runs the heater accordingly.
Well, woman also have a urethra, but the point of attack with the virus seems to be the cervix. So, even in woman, the urethra cells seems to be less susceptible.
If you're gonna screw with the planet go slow, get clues, make models, test worst case scenarios and for the sake of all that's holy, have a friggin exist strategy.
Sage advice from the 1940s which fell on deaf ears in the copulate-like-bunnies 1950s. Screwing with the planet dates back to the invention of agriculture. Then came the industrial revolution with soot, SO2, and aerosols. By my count were entering round three, at the very least. Neither of the first two rounds were preceded by any kind of useful model. Another one I should probably include is air transportation as a pathogen vector. Well, we're all still alive. So far, so good.
I guess the exit strategy on copulate-like-bunnies would be to refuse to feed two billion people. But since the consensus seems to be feed all those mouths (present company included), and we can only do so by continuing to burn fossil fuels, and much of the world's population resides near sea level, perhaps we're best served with a thoughtful blend of prudence and haste.
One of the things that could possibly go wrong is that Nero fiddles while Rome burns.
BTW, is it standard costume etiquette for precautionary superheros to enter the conversation swinging their hat like Slim Pickens surfing his big salami?
By copulate like bunnies, I assume you mean that we overpopulated the earth. There is no actual proof of that. In addition in Western countries, obesity has risen to alarming rates while in third world countries people are starving. While I do believe there is a maximum number of people the planet can ultimately support, the food problem seems to be one of distribution, not capacity to produce.
"there are only so many seats in a classroom and only so many classrooms on a campus."
I had several great classes in college with a 300:1 student/faculty ratio.
On the other hand, this video class is way better than the electromagnetics class I had in college that had only 30 students, because the professor is excellent.
So why do you have to physically be in a college, when they same thing can be achieved through videoconferencing/video lectures?
We also need to deal with the question about how much college is actual education versus signaling that you can spend four years of your life getting drunk and hooking up while being able to still get A's.
I understand your concerns/questions regarding physically attending and the amount of education, however, neither of those are addressed by Ron Paul. As for remote classrooms, that is an excellent idea. However, the school still has to cover the cost of it's existing space and professor salary. Most online classes I've been involved with still limit the student-teacher ratio.
An undergrad degree has become the new high school diploma. Unfortunately, many jobs shouldn't require a college degree in the first place and only do because there is such a plethora of graduates. Of course to handle the large influx of students, most universities dumbed down their curriculum so now, a master's degree has become what a B.A. or B.S. was.
The oversupply of students has caused the cost of an education to go up and yet the oversupply of graduates has caused the financial rewards of an education to go down.
Maybe, Android phones should just install their own driver to read btrfs or ext2 or something on a windows machine. Or better yet, the vfat file system calls are well documented, all an Android phone needs to do is intercept them and translate to what ever file format they want. The phone only needs an interface that a windows machine will recognize, not to actually store the data that way.
Ron Paul believes that rising higher education costs are because of supply and demand and that government loans allow the schools to charge ever increasing prices. He's only partially correct.
It doesn't matter how much the government subsidizes (besides most loans are through private institutions and not the government), there are only so many seats in a classroom and only so many classrooms on a campus. Most major universities and colleges are near capacity. As the demand for those seats outstrips the supply, the school can charge what it wants. It doesn't matter if it is subsidized or not.
So, Ron Paul is partially correct, it is a supply and demand problem. But like most politicians, he doesn't recognize the source of the problem and comes up with the wrong solution.
Slashdot Mirror
Wasn't this pretty predictable? I can't see how anyone participating in these protests could have imagined that they would be allowed to stay indefinitely without getting rousted by the cops. It's a form of civil disobedience. What is the point of arguing about whether DHS and FBI are involved, about details of the law, about various mayors' secret motivations, etc.? If you do civil disobedience, you expect to get hauled off to jail.
Actually, it is only civil disobedience if you ignore the order to vacate. However, even those who did vacate were arrested outside the park as they were leaving. So, yes, once lawfully ordered to leave, some did refuse the order and were arrested. Many more were arrested, however, that had already left.
As for DHS and FBI involvement, it matters, because it is limited federal resources being applied to local problems. Again, the only law being broken was for the failure to leave when told to do so. The FBI and DHS involvement occurred prior to this. Is it really the role of government police authority to be used on citizens when no federal laws are being violated?
The irony is that people camping out in the park may be an embarrassment to city officials, but doesn't cost them much. Arresting and processing them through the legal system is a whole different story.
I'm just curious how much the FBI and DHS involvement cost the taxpayers? I know I sure feel safer knowing that limited resources are being spent to protect us from peaceful protestors camped out in city parks.
Actually, if people have their own tablets and phones, what's stopping them from taking their own adult films on board. A plane is not the proper place to be watching a porn movie. That movie could easily be seen by the person beside you, behind you, or just someone walking down the aisle.
Airlines can't profit from it if you bring it yourself. They want to distribute and sell the porn.
My point was that while you claim christians are being trampled on it seems to me, at least in the US, it is the christians doing the trampling. Just because you have decided that evangelicals are less christian and your flavor is more christian, the trampling remains.
I never said that evangelicals are less christian than anyone else. However, the evangelical right is the group you tend to hear about the most as they are very vocal. My point being that in a country that the 76% of people call them self christian (2008), making generalizations on them based on one group or another is not accurate. Evangelicals as a group represent 26% of the population, but that is all evangelicals, not some organized group with the same ideology. The next group are Roman Catholics with 23% and then mainline Protestants with 18%.
Of those top three, only a portion of the evangelicals claim creationism as what is correct. So, if only a minority of christians hold that believe, why lump all the others in with them?
As for being trampled on, those were not my words. However, if one is being politically correct, then you can't bash Jews and you can't bash Muslims, but for some reason bashing Christians is acceptable. That seems inconsistent in a country that professes freedom of speech and religion.
For the record, I am not even christian, but some of my friends are and none of them support the issues you list.
Closed minds are not scientific.
Amen to that!
I always find it deeply amusing when bullies play the victim card.
- school prayer
- one nation, under god
- in god we trust
- commandments in the courts
- opening prayer in congress
- christmas and easter notional holidays
The problem is that what you list is the based on the agenda of right wing Evangelicals. There are many more christian denominations and groups in the US that do not push those items. With regards to the original topic on the debate, Haught is roman catholic and none of those items apply to the catholic church. Just as not all Muslims are terrorists, not all Christians are extremists.
According to the summary, siri is a google killer and makes apple the best smartphone platform.
For those assumptions to be true, that means that siri has to be something that people want. While I admit there is a somewhat star trekian cool factor by talking to your phone. On*Star has had similar features. Ford's respond to voice commands and read text messages, etc. And yet, people aren't dumping their current cars for these must have features.
Granted siri is beyond the capabilities of On*Star and the like, but does the public really want to use a phone where you say everything out load for everybody around you to hear, too?
User on subway: Read Text Message.
Phone: From Sharon, I think it's time we move on and see other people.
User on subway: Damn.
Other riders on subway: Awwwww.
Don't get me wrong, there are times that this would be useful, but is it a necessity? If not, then how will it kill google ?
I didn't hear the NPR story, what was their take?
In the case you state, the contract was to show the comic in the paper. That did not occur. The contract at the University was to hold a debate and to allow it to be recorded as are most public events at the University. It did not specify that it would be shown. Even Coyne has admitted that. However, it is all moot now as the video has been released.
They didn't agree to have it released beforehand. They agreed to allow it to be recorded. However, it is now a mute point as the video has been released.
Watching the video and reading the letter do give a fairly reasonable opposite view from the last article, that has nothing to do with the merits of science or religion. But, ya know, you would have thought a Christian would have turned the other cheek, forgiven his enemy and just released the damn video to get his message across. Christians never seem to remember the forgiveness thing.
Being Christian doesn't mean you have to accept being trampled on. Christians have rights, too.
...but debating these people only give them credibility they do not deserve. The people who believe in creationism will never be swayed away from it, because their reasons for believing in it it are not the same as ours are for believing evolution. It is not out of an attempt to explain nature and the universe, but an egotistical need to be above it. Being descended from primates is offensive to them because they see the sum of humanity as being a jumble of biological components, rather than our arts and sciences. No wonder: religion has usually opposed arts and sciences until they gained enough traction to threaten the religion itself should it resist further.
It's time for religion to be closed out from the scientific debate altogether. "Faith" has no place in a field based on empirical evidence and doubt. Creationism doesn't even deserve a title as a discredited theory, it belongs with mythology like Atlantis and elves, and should rightly be laughed at with impunity.
Haught is not a creationist and the debate wasn't about creationism. Haught is Catholic and the Catholic Church is one of the largest funders of scientific research. There are many Jesuit (Catholic) Universities in this country that do marvelous research in all areas of science. Even though I am not a Catholic, I do see the contributions they make in research. It seems that in a country that values free speech, proposing that any group be censured or silenced is hypocritical.
..and one giant win for science.
Aparently god is not siding with the theologin on this one. LMAO he suppressed the video because he knew he was beat. And yet people like this still hang on to their belief system (for dear life) even when they have been bested in a fair debate (conquered by logic).
You must not have watched the video. Haught came across very reasonable. Coyne on the other hand was very obnoxious and didn't even stay on topic, but kept using strawman arguments. In the end, I am quite confident that those who believe in God still do and those who don't still don't.
Whether there was a legally binding agreement for them to show the video is a matter of fact that goes beyond the permission agreement, and gets into what was said and what the general practice is. I don't think either of us know enough of the facts to say one way or another.
The fact that the University owns the rights to the video does not preclude them from having entered into a verbal agreement to show the video.
Unless that verbal agreement specified when, where and how the video was to have been shown, then it is unenforceable. Maybe the University will show it on the 50th anniversary of the debate. In addition, to have a claim, you have to show some sort of harm. The two individuals were contracted (paid) to have the debate. A verbal agreement is not the same as a legal contract. The court will go by what the contract signed by the parties says. Plus, there is no evidence that a verbal agreement to show the video ever existed. There was an agreement for the university to record the debate.
This is no different than if David Letterman interviews me to air on TV tonight, but they change the lineup and my segment doesn't air. The Letterman show cannot be compelled to broadcast my interview at a later date. They may if they want to, but, since they own the rights to it, it is up to them. Likewise with the University. They recorded a live exchange between two people, with their permission. However, there is no legal basis to compel the University to "broadcast" their recording regardless of what you or I may want or think.
Whether there was an implicit agreement to post the video would be a matter of fact to be found by the jury. From what I've seen stated, I think an argument can be made that such an agreement was implicit in the other explicitly stated terms of their negotiations. It does depend on just what was said, but there can be implicit terms to a verbal agreement.
The University recorded it so it could show it to those who could not attend. There is no question that the University owns the "rights" to the video. The reason they needed the permission of the debaters was that without it, they could not legally show it. Having their permission, however, does not require them to show it or release it.
The compatibility of Religion and Evolution which actually makes Haught even more suited to the debate.
But again, at least as viewed by the Catholic Church, evolution and religion are not incompatible. Something about God created man and evolution is how he went about doing it. Actually, the pope didn't state that evolution is accepted science and does not actually change that God created all of this.
The Catholic Church does not hold that creation stories in Genesis are literal accounts of creation. So it would seam that a Catholic Theologian and an evolutionary scientist (whether Atheist or not) would be in agreement on a discussion regarding evolution. Now, if the discussion went in the direction of whether God existed or not, that seems to be out of the realm of a scientific discussion in the first place (can't be proven or disproven).
Religion and science is actually a dangerous area to broach, not because of religion, but if one views religion as just another philosophy, then the argument can be construed that science always trumps philosophy. The problem with that is that science, by it's very nature, is amoral and such a position can lead to science/technology regardless of the cost (economic or human). In addition, to take that approach to it's extreme, then we should only listen to scientists on matters of what should be done (doctors for medical decisions, economists for the economy, generals for military, etc.) Such a position implies that the individual doesn't count (since that would be a philosophical point and not a scientific point).
Most scientists or even atheists would not take such an approach with any other philosophy than religion. But, scientifically, why should religion be singled out?
IANAL, but, the University owns the video, not Coyne and it is theirs to do with as they please. There was no agreement with the parties involved that they would have access to the video.
I'm confused. What exactly did they debate? Haught is a Catholic theologian and the Catholic Church is not one of the creationist religions. The late Pope John Paul even publicly endorsed evolution. So what exactly did they debate about?
Maybe they should ask Whirpool. We purchased an electric water heater by them about 5 years ago that learns your water usage pattern and then runs the heater accordingly.
Well, woman also have a urethra, but the point of attack with the virus seems to be the cervix. So, even in woman, the urethra cells seems to be less susceptible.
To answer the original question, System76 (www.system76.com) five different laptop models with Ubuntu pre-installed. They also offer support.
Sage advice from the 1940s which fell on deaf ears in the copulate-like-bunnies 1950s. Screwing with the planet dates back to the invention of agriculture. Then came the industrial revolution with soot, SO2, and aerosols. By my count were entering round three, at the very least. Neither of the first two rounds were preceded by any kind of useful model. Another one I should probably include is air transportation as a pathogen vector. Well, we're all still alive. So far, so good.
I guess the exit strategy on copulate-like-bunnies would be to refuse to feed two billion people. But since the consensus seems to be feed all those mouths (present company included), and we can only do so by continuing to burn fossil fuels, and much of the world's population resides near sea level, perhaps we're best served with a thoughtful blend of prudence and haste.
One of the things that could possibly go wrong is that Nero fiddles while Rome burns.
BTW, is it standard costume etiquette for precautionary superheros to enter the conversation swinging their hat like Slim Pickens surfing his big salami?
By copulate like bunnies, I assume you mean that we overpopulated the earth. There is no actual proof of that. In addition in Western countries, obesity has risen to alarming rates while in third world countries people are starving. While I do believe there is a maximum number of people the planet can ultimately support, the food problem seems to be one of distribution, not capacity to produce.
"there are only so many seats in a classroom and only so many classrooms on a campus."
I had several great classes in college with a 300:1 student/faculty ratio.
On the other hand, this video class is way better than the electromagnetics class I had in college that had only 30 students, because the professor is excellent.
So why do you have to physically be in a college, when they same thing can be achieved through videoconferencing/video lectures?
We also need to deal with the question about how much college is actual education versus signaling that you can spend four years of your life getting drunk and hooking up while being able to still get A's.
I understand your concerns/questions regarding physically attending and the amount of education, however, neither of those are addressed by Ron Paul. As for remote classrooms, that is an excellent idea. However, the school still has to cover the cost of it's existing space and professor salary. Most online classes I've been involved with still limit the student-teacher ratio.
An undergrad degree has become the new high school diploma. Unfortunately, many jobs shouldn't require a college degree in the first place and only do because there is such a plethora of graduates. Of course to handle the large influx of students, most universities dumbed down their curriculum so now, a master's degree has become what a B.A. or B.S. was.
The oversupply of students has caused the cost of an education to go up and yet the oversupply of graduates has caused the financial rewards of an education to go down.
Maybe, Android phones should just install their own driver to read btrfs or ext2 or something on a windows machine. Or better yet, the vfat file system calls are well documented, all an Android phone needs to do is intercept them and translate to what ever file format they want. The phone only needs an interface that a windows machine will recognize, not to actually store the data that way.
Ron Paul believes that rising higher education costs are because of supply and demand and that government loans allow the schools to charge ever increasing prices. He's only partially correct.
It doesn't matter how much the government subsidizes (besides most loans are through private institutions and not the government), there are only so many seats in a classroom and only so many classrooms on a campus. Most major universities and colleges are near capacity. As the demand for those seats outstrips the supply, the school can charge what it wants. It doesn't matter if it is subsidized or not.
So, Ron Paul is partially correct, it is a supply and demand problem. But like most politicians, he doesn't recognize the source of the problem and comes up with the wrong solution.