>> There is no obligation to be "fair" when fighting injustice.
is there an obligation to be "just" when fighting "injustice"?... if not, you're just choosing the kind of injustice you *prefer*... and fairness is part of justice
Antibiotic resistance doesn't come from raising livestock,
I don't think so; from "Agriculture and food animals as a source of antimicrobial-resistant bacteria":
"The use and misuse of antibiotics in farm animal settings as growth promoters or as nonspecific means of infection prevention and treatment has boosted antibiotic consumption and resistance among bacteria in the animal habitat. This reservoir of resistance can be transmitted directly or indirectly to humans through food consumption and direct or indirect contact. " (doi: 10.2147/IDR.S55778)
"Once you have a monopoly -- such as "Single Payer" education, or healthcare, or Internet-Service provision -- the price goes up and the quality goes down."
what absolute bollocks - USA health costs per person is about $8000 whereas that bastion of capitalist competition, Sweden, is $4000 (you can check it out if you know how to use this thing called the internet).
I think you should think twice before accusing someone of being "unbelievably dumb" because the world is more complicated than your view of it.
from wikipedia: The first automobile patent in the United States was granted to Oliver Evans in 1789, and in 1801 Richard Trevithick was running a full-sized vehicle on the roads in Camborne.
So yes, it *did* take years, more than a hundred; self-driving cars at now at the Camborne stage. Things move faster now - it will only take 25 years to get them on the roads in numbers.
General "Buck" Turgidson: Doctor, you mentioned the ratio of ten women to each man. Now, wouldn't that necessitate the abandonment of the so-called monogamous sexual relationship, I mean, as far as men were concerned? Dr. Strangelove: Regrettably, yes. But it is, you know, a sacrifice required for the future of the human race. I hasten to add that since each man will be required to do prodigious... service along these lines, the women will have to be selected for their sexual characteristics which will have to be of a highly stimulating nature.
the vacuum is electrically neutral; the virtual charged particles created by quantum fluctuations will be in oppositely charged pairs (e.g. electron / positron). Won't this drive send these pairs in opposite directions? So the whole thing will have zero thrust
this thought is the product of complete ignorance of how this drive is actually supposed to work however:)
Libel/slander laws do not limit speech. They can only be applied after the fact. So you can be held responsible for what you say or write, but you cannot be restrained from saying it in the first place.
This doesn't make sense. Laws forbid you to utter slanderous statements. Other laws forbid you to utter "fire" in a theatre. In both cases, I can commit the offense. So either slander laws *do* limit speech or the "don't shout fire in a theatre" does *not* limit free speech. Which is it?
The point is that either you have reasonable basic liberties, or you don't. If you think an adult ought to be able to decide what they will or will not ingest, then how do you get from there to the authorities stepping into that decision using coercion? If you don't think an adult ought to be able to make those decisions for themselves, then I can't have a meaningful conversation with you.
I think you mean an adult can ingest anything he wants so long as it does not harm others (suppose I ingest substance A and B which together form a powerful explosive, right beside YOU. Do I have the right to ingest A and B. I think not).
Now, we should have a *meaningful* discussion of whether **some** drugs are such that there consumption harms others to a sufficient degree to warrant prohibiting their ingestion.
I think it is completely obvious that marijuana poses no such risk; not so sure about crack cocaine (and, from another angle, potential cognitive enhancers, steroids for athletes etc.)
Slashdot Mirror
>> There is no obligation to be "fair" when fighting injustice.
is there an obligation to be "just" when fighting "injustice"? ... if ... and fairness is part of justice
not, you're just choosing the kind of injustice you *prefer*
love to hear more about this; citations please
I did not know any of these were actually in commercial
operation
don't see it in chrome either; in Canada FWIW
some less fantasy filled context here:
http://www.politifact.com/trut...
Antibiotic resistance doesn't come from raising livestock,
I don't think so; from "Agriculture and food animals as a source of antimicrobial-resistant bacteria":
"The use and misuse of antibiotics in farm animal settings as growth promoters or as nonspecific means of infection prevention and treatment has boosted antibiotic consumption and resistance among bacteria in the animal habitat. This reservoir of resistance can be transmitted directly or indirectly to humans through food consumption and direct or indirect contact. " (doi: 10.2147/IDR.S55778)
Please give your opposing citations.
there have been tests of limited UBI (and there some upcoming)
It seems to work very well (see Utopia for Realists,
http://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/u...)
"Once you have a monopoly -- such as "Single Payer" education,
or healthcare, or Internet-Service provision -- the price goes up
and the quality goes down."
what absolute bollocks - USA health costs per person
is about $8000 whereas that bastion of capitalist competition,
Sweden, is $4000 (you can check it out if you know how to
use this thing called the internet).
I think you should think twice before accusing someone
of being "unbelievably dumb" because the world is more
complicated than your view of it.
This is NOT a report, it is a kind of prediction ...
by an economist
think about their track record
there are no images at the github, only metadata
"And it would take YEARS!"
from wikipedia: The first automobile patent in the United States was granted to Oliver Evans in 1789, and in 1801 Richard Trevithick was running a full-sized vehicle on the roads in Camborne.
So yes, it *did* take years, more than a hundred; self-driving cars at now at the Camborne stage. Things
move faster now - it will only take 25 years to get them on the roads in numbers.
see http://understandinguncertaint...
It can be done if you're willing to disable kext security check
see http://www.cindori.org/trim-en...
citation(s) much needed
General "Buck" Turgidson: Doctor, you mentioned the ratio of ten women to each man. Now, wouldn't that necessitate the abandonment of the so-called monogamous sexual relationship, I mean, as far as men were concerned?
Dr. Strangelove: Regrettably, yes. But it is, you know, a sacrifice required for the future of the human race. I hasten to add that since each man will be required to do prodigious... service along these lines, the women will have to be selected for their sexual characteristics which will have to be of a highly stimulating nature.
"Overall, the agricultural sector contributed nearly 7% of total US GHG emissions in 2010"
that is from http://iopscience.iop.org/1748...; that's just the USA
but it's indicative that there's something a *little* wrong with your claim
this is smart, at least with respect to space-X. Musk will man rate
his rocket with or without NASA money, so it's a win-win for
NASA
yes, also infinity Q50 (as in the infamous
http://www.motorauthority.com/...)
nuke the entire site from orbit - it's the only way to be sure
the vacuum is electrically neutral; the virtual charged particles
created by quantum fluctuations will be in oppositely charged
pairs (e.g. electron / positron). Won't this drive send these pairs
in opposite directions? So the whole thing will have zero thrust
this thought is the product of complete ignorance of how this :)
drive is actually supposed to work however
how do you get from
"in many cases"
to
"overwhelming majority"
this is the straw man fallacy, classic case
"Actually, there are three issues at play, two of which are mutually exclusive and the other two are related but not exactly the same."
I am intrigued by your mathematics
seriously, it's time
Libel/slander laws do not limit speech. They can only be applied after the fact. So you can be held responsible for what you say or write, but you cannot be restrained from saying it in the first place.
This doesn't make sense. Laws forbid you to utter slanderous statements. Other laws forbid you to utter "fire" in a theatre. In both cases, I can commit the offense. So either slander laws *do* limit speech or the "don't shout fire in a theatre" does *not* limit free speech. Which is it?
The point is that either you have reasonable basic liberties, or you don't. If you think an adult ought to be able to decide what they will or will not ingest, then how do you get from there to the authorities stepping into that decision using coercion? If you don't think an adult ought to be able to make those decisions for themselves, then I can't have a meaningful conversation with you.
I think you mean an adult can ingest anything he wants so long as it does not harm
others (suppose I ingest substance A and B which together form a powerful explosive,
right beside YOU. Do I have the right to ingest A and B. I think not).
Now, we should have a *meaningful* discussion of whether **some** drugs are such
that there consumption harms others to a sufficient degree to warrant prohibiting their
ingestion.
I think it is completely obvious that marijuana poses no such risk; not so sure
about crack cocaine (and, from another angle, potential cognitive enhancers,
steroids for athletes etc.)
system requirements for inkling
Windows 7, Vista or XP (SP3, 32 or 64 bit versions),
Mac OS 10.5+ (and Intel Processor)
I didn't spend very long looking either