Why not ask? For me, parsing is essential to reading, and parsing is done by looking at each word individually and assigning to each a grammatical function in relation to the other words.
I'm not entirely sure how skim-reading relates to this. I've never really noticed a difference in kind in how I read. The only thing in my experience with which I can identify skim-reading would be reading particularly fast. Reading in such a way is still basically the same as to reading not so fast, in my experience, but perhaps more error-prone.
It doesn't seem to me that the possible changes caused by the changing carbon dioxide levels could be a serious existential threat to all of humanity. It seems that the changes that people have gone through and handily survived have been far more drastic and prompt. Local changes can be very drastic in terms of weather, such as of flooding or drought, or resource collapse in a variety of ways -- drop in fish stocks, blight on crop, etc., yet many people remain in the locality and still survive; this has been done for many thousands of years. Many locales have been continuously occupied for all of recorded history despite great local changes. On top of that, many people can readily move more suitable locations. Certainly, many are in precarious situations and not well disposed to handle further stress and would likely die if turmoil arises, but many are also both currently very secure and well prepared to deal with change.
Sense versus reference, and synchronic versus diachronic.
So right now there is a group that is the top 5% of data users. They are the ones whose usage will be scaled back. Nothing about doing this implies that some other group who will later be the referent of "the top 5%" will also be affected. To illustrate, If I say that I am going to meet the judges of the Supreme Court, that can easily just mean I'm going to meet the 9 current judges; if there are successors, I don't also have to meet them in order to make good on my claim.
Except that there is no evidence he was a combatant or a spy! What combat was he involved in? What spying did he do? There is no evidence that he was a member of Al-Qaeda except innuendo. There is no evidence that he was involved in training missions. There is innuendo, the worst possible evidence, that he recruited people and that is all. Or there is this claim from US officials that they have evidence that he had an "operational role" in terrorist activities, but they leave this completely undefined.
He stopped being a citizen because he merely said he renounced his citizenship? That is not how you lose US citizenship.
In my opinion, the US executive branch, be it Obama or his underlings, murdered a US citizen.
But if you want to contradict me, you can send me some citations and I'll reconsider. Don't just send me to the Wikipedia page though where too often their citations do not match up with the claims made.
I only recently discovered a workaround. I had previously stayed away from places that demand my real name like Facebook. I used the form of my name in a different language, not a translation but a standard transliteration. Their requirements never say which writing system I have to include my real name, only that I have to include my real name. My real name written in the Arabic or Japanese writing system is still my real name, but it's not much use to those who would otherwise find me.
Birds occupy a tiny number of niches? I would guess that, if there are tetrapods regularly in a region, there are also birds regularly there, except the deep oceans, but I don't have a source for that, I just can't think of another exception (which is not an argument just a small basis to guess as so). As for specific diversity, Wikipedia says right in the opening of its page on birds (my emphasis): "Around 10,000 living species makes them the most speciose class of tetrapod vertebrates. " Birds are more diverse now than dinosaurs ever were during the Mesozoic. First of all, there have been around 700 species of dinosaurs discovered -- and those are fossils from the entire Mesozoic which lasted nearly 200 million years. Even when you extrapolate (pdf source) you probably only get about 1200 genera and 1440 species of dinosaurs for the entire Mesozoic. And the maximum that existed at any one time was about 100 genera. That there was a massive decline for the dinosaurs is easily deniable if you consider specific diversity and birds are understood as indistinct from dinosaurs, the latter conjunct being the original assumption.
It could be Textkit. I used White's First Greek book which I got from there and the forums to start me off on learning Greek before I went to university. It looks like the website has really been changed cosmetically since I last looked, however. Hopefully the substance is still there.
What do you mean by "well regulated and discouraged"? I don't quite see the strict division between illegal and regulated. I would suppose the way most people now get, say, opiates (in a black market) would still be illegal if opiates are merely "well regulated and discouraged". I'm supposing the way you're imagining these things being capable of being legally bought would be in the case of them being bought from licensed proprietors. Either it would cost so much from these sellers that people would still get it on the black market and therefore it would still be illegal for them, or it would cost so little that the discouragement against buying opiates would be less than if there were no licensed proprietors.
If you legalised opiates in such a way as to thereby make it sufficiently cheap, I would certainly buy it whenever I am in pain. They work very nicely. But because they are illegal for me to buy them without a prescription, they cost a lot of money for me to secure them, so I don't. Making these things illegal in various ways is the way that they are discouraged, it seems to me.
Interestingly: "None of this is to say the Liberals would be any better. They introduced their own lawful access package many years ago and the reaction of MPs like McTeague in 2009 was "what took you so long." The Liberals point to protection from digital threats in their platform, but do not specifically discuss lawful access. They should be asked about where they stand now (so too for the NDP which marshalled opposition in 2009)."
Looks like NDP are the ones to support on this issue.
The things which are "moral" in the sense of "morally good", and the things for which there are "good reasons" must tend toward the same reference, varying only with what exactly you mean by a "good reason". Certainly any morally good end must have a morally good reason for it to be chosen, insofar as it is possibly an end which is deliberately aimed at by a reasoning person. If some "to be done" thing did not have a good reason to be done (whether accessible or not), then how could it be said to be morally imperative for a reasoning person? Reasoned choice, as a result of pure deliberation, is made purely on the basis of reasons, so the quality of such a choice (as something which is made, as the action of a subject) can only be grounded in the quality of the reasons which ground the choice. So, ceteris paribus, if there are morally good reasons for choosing some thing, the choice of that thing is morally good. And, in the other direction, if the choice of some thing is morally good, then there are morally good reasons for choosing that thing. And any such thing is only described as "morally good" as the choice of it is morally good, in the use or implementation of it, because morality is about what should be willed, but such things don't will, but are rather what are willed (into existence or into some particular arrangement, i.e., they are chosen to be used or implemented in some way). In these senses there is equivalence with the things for which there are good reasons and the things which are moral. So if there is good reason for some social behaviour, then that social behaviour is moral, and if someone uses legislation to implement that social behaviour, then they are using legislation to implement what is moral.
"A right, by definition, does not require action on the part of another."
I assume you're talking about moral rights. I assume you're not talking about legal rights, as those are dependent on the legal system involved, and so could require anything on the part of anyone, depending on how they are defined in legislation. In my country the proper authorities have the legal right to require me to join the military in certain circumstances, and that is plain fact, so you can't be talking about legal rights. You must be talking about moral rights -- which speak to what is morally permissible.
So if someone abducts your child, hides and locks her away, tells me (who nonetheless never wanted this and did everything in his power to avoid this) where she is, and then he kills himself, and you have proof of all of this, then neither you nor anyone else has the right to require me to tell you where she is, as a right does not require an action on the part of another, by definition? You would not be requiring me to refrain from an action, as I am taking no action otherwise, but actually requiring me to tell you, which involves an action of telling, not a refraining.
Or if some mad man has rigged thermonuclear devices which will, with provable certainty, kill every living thing on Earth only unless I in particular, completely unwilling, paint him a picture, then neither you nor anyone else has the right to require me to paint him a picture? You would not be requiring me to refrain from an action, as I am taking no action otherwise, but actually requiring me to paint a picture, which involves an action of painting, not a refraining.
To be honest, constructing examples to test your intuitions seems silly to me anyway, because I have a feeling you just made that up, and really the claim is not based on the definition of a "right", which you don't have, but merely your opinion.
The proposition would have been construed as singular by Aristotle. Kant would accept this, but would also go along with the traditional logicians and treat it here as universal, because this here is not a matter of application of transcendental logic, nor of aesthetic judgement, but rather of general logic, because for such a case as this the singular is saliently just like the universal, for the singular has no domain and so no part of any such domain is excluded from the judgement (which is the salient feature).
I put that last sentence in Kant-fashion just for you.
It's a non-sequitur to point out that the regime which overthrew the last regime while promising a better political/social order has not delivered.
Okay then...
I'm sorry I don't have the silver bullet for the country's woes. An initial idea might be the removal of the Mugabe regime. Pointing out the faults of that regime might actually be a start in the removal of it, actually.
Thank god Mugabe and his supporters overthrew those white supremacists so many years ago, and now the people of Zimbabwe can live in freedom and security.
How would an alternative DNS becoming more commonplace necessarily, or likely, be a "serious problem"? I just do not see it. To note, I disagree with how the distribution of domain names is determined with regards to ICANN-linked registrars (it's not "first come, first served", by the way, or else PETA would not have peta.org*), so on that ground alone I support and use alternative DNS.**
I don't see this demand that one not use an alternative DNS much different from the demand that one use only a standards-compliant browser. No thanks -- I'll display the content the way I want it to display, not the way the content-maker wants. If you want me to read your page with red Comic sans faced text on a yellow background, I'm sorry, I'm going to have to disappoint you and display that as black Times New Roman on white. I know that breaks CSS standards and all, but I'd rather my browser break with standards and display things the way I want rather than the other way around..
*The courts ruled that the original peta.org was not a parody, because the address "peta.org" has only the pretense, and does not make it clear that it is a parody, while this does not occur "simultaneously" with the content, which makes it clear that it is a parody. By this reasoning A Modest Proposal is not parody, because the title has only the pretense.
**I guess you could say that the same courts could all the same take part in determining name distribution for an alternative DNS, but I at least hold hope they would see by then how ridiculous it is -- the system is just one of many and people can take it or leave it, or else you might as well take people to court for modifying their hosts files. Then again, why they can't see that for the case of ICANN-DNS makes that hope somewhat tenuous.
Your Analytica is alright, but it seems neither did you meditate very much on Categoriae I, where homonymy is defined (which can be forgiven, as things are not so concrete there), nor have you reached De Sophisticis Elenchis where its sophistical use is described (which cannot be forgiven as you should know your entire Organon before you employ any part of it.)
I just changed some settings and then when I plugged in http://www.lbgt2sqqsupport.gay/ Firefox went right to the site for which I was looking. Is Obama planning on changing the fundamental architecture of the internet, or legally barring alternative DNS schemes? Or is he just too stupid to know better, or not in control of his own administration which in turn is too stupid to know better?
"The Egyptian legal system is built on the combination of Islamic (Shariah) law and Napoleonic Code, which was first introduced during Napoleon Bonaparteâ(TM)s occupation of Egypt and the subsequent education and training of Egyptian jurists in France.... According to the 1980 amendment of the Constitution, Islamic Law (Sharia) became the principal source of legislative rules. Such wording simply implies that any new law that is being enacted or considered for enactment should not be in contravention of any prevailing principles of Islamic Law (Sharia).... Prior to the 1980 amendment, Islamic Law (Sharia) was merely a source, amongst other sources, for legislative rules."
Before you used to be able to log in as you posted a reply, you'd supply login credentials along with the reply materials. So you could come across a message to which you'd like to reply, and do so, no problem. Now, you come across a message, your only real option is this: Press the log in link which takes you to a different page and then supply your credentials, and when it logs you in, it takes you back to the main page! Now, good luck finding the comment again. Usually I don't even bother any more, so I rarely reply to anything.
The only iffy one to me is continuing to have sex with a broken condom. If the woman knows it broke and says stop, see point #1 about withdrawing consent. If not, I think predicated consent is too slippery a slope to go down. "I wouldn't have agreed to sex if I knew the condom was broken" seems perfectly fair to me, but it's a stone's throw away from "I wouldn't have agreed to sex if I knew the car he was driving was his mother's" or "if I knew he was married" or "if I knew he wasn't rich." While I don't approve of people lying for sex, calling it rape does cross a line for me as long as the actual act of sex itself was consensual.
How is this not begging the question? The question is whether the act was rape, in particular, whether consent was given. You then answer it by saying the act of sex itself was consensual. You premise the answer. And to wonder: If you offer me a cookie, and I assent to taking it, and then you punch me in the face, and say that I consented because you were lying by calling a punch in the face a cookie, I hardly see how you could be telling the truth, that is, that I actually consented.
Let's take another case. I am temporarily rendered insenstive to some extent, and then you offer me sex, having convinced me that your name is Megan Fox and a beautiful and famous actress, and I assent. In reality, you are Dhalka226, an ugly and infamous sex-monger. I hardly see how I could be considered to have consented.
Slashdot Mirror
Why not ask? For me, parsing is essential to reading, and parsing is done by looking at each word individually and assigning to each a grammatical function in relation to the other words.
I'm not entirely sure how skim-reading relates to this. I've never really noticed a difference in kind in how I read. The only thing in my experience with which I can identify skim-reading would be reading particularly fast. Reading in such a way is still basically the same as to reading not so fast, in my experience, but perhaps more error-prone.
It doesn't seem to me that the possible changes caused by the changing carbon dioxide levels could be a serious existential threat to all of humanity. It seems that the changes that people have gone through and handily survived have been far more drastic and prompt. Local changes can be very drastic in terms of weather, such as of flooding or drought, or resource collapse in a variety of ways -- drop in fish stocks, blight on crop, etc., yet many people remain in the locality and still survive; this has been done for many thousands of years. Many locales have been continuously occupied for all of recorded history despite great local changes. On top of that, many people can readily move more suitable locations. Certainly, many are in precarious situations and not well disposed to handle further stress and would likely die if turmoil arises, but many are also both currently very secure and well prepared to deal with change.
Sense versus reference, and synchronic versus diachronic.
So right now there is a group that is the top 5% of data users. They are the ones whose usage will be scaled back. Nothing about doing this implies that some other group who will later be the referent of "the top 5%" will also be affected. To illustrate, If I say that I am going to meet the judges of the Supreme Court, that can easily just mean I'm going to meet the 9 current judges; if there are successors, I don't also have to meet them in order to make good on my claim.
Except that there is no evidence he was a combatant or a spy! What combat was he involved in? What spying did he do? There is no evidence that he was a member of Al-Qaeda except innuendo. There is no evidence that he was involved in training missions. There is innuendo, the worst possible evidence, that he recruited people and that is all. Or there is this claim from US officials that they have evidence that he had an "operational role" in terrorist activities, but they leave this completely undefined.
He stopped being a citizen because he merely said he renounced his citizenship? That is not how you lose US citizenship.
In my opinion, the US executive branch, be it Obama or his underlings, murdered a US citizen.
But if you want to contradict me, you can send me some citations and I'll reconsider. Don't just send me to the Wikipedia page though where too often their citations do not match up with the claims made.
So are no students going to graduate cum laude?
I only recently discovered a workaround. I had previously stayed away from places that demand my real name like Facebook. I used the form of my name in a different language, not a translation but a standard transliteration. Their requirements never say which writing system I have to include my real name, only that I have to include my real name. My real name written in the Arabic or Japanese writing system is still my real name, but it's not much use to those who would otherwise find me.
Birds occupy a tiny number of niches? I would guess that, if there are tetrapods regularly in a region, there are also birds regularly there, except the deep oceans, but I don't have a source for that, I just can't think of another exception (which is not an argument just a small basis to guess as so). As for specific diversity, Wikipedia says right in the opening of its page on birds (my emphasis): "Around 10,000 living species makes them the most speciose class of tetrapod vertebrates. " Birds are more diverse now than dinosaurs ever were during the Mesozoic. First of all, there have been around 700 species of dinosaurs discovered -- and those are fossils from the entire Mesozoic which lasted nearly 200 million years. Even when you extrapolate (pdf source) you probably only get about 1200 genera and 1440 species of dinosaurs for the entire Mesozoic. And the maximum that existed at any one time was about 100 genera. That there was a massive decline for the dinosaurs is easily deniable if you consider specific diversity and birds are understood as indistinct from dinosaurs, the latter conjunct being the original assumption.
Why would you ever suppose that it would?
It could be Textkit. I used White's First Greek book which I got from there and the forums to start me off on learning Greek before I went to university. It looks like the website has really been changed cosmetically since I last looked, however. Hopefully the substance is still there.
What do you mean by "well regulated and discouraged"? I don't quite see the strict division between illegal and regulated. I would suppose the way most people now get, say, opiates (in a black market) would still be illegal if opiates are merely "well regulated and discouraged". I'm supposing the way you're imagining these things being capable of being legally bought would be in the case of them being bought from licensed proprietors. Either it would cost so much from these sellers that people would still get it on the black market and therefore it would still be illegal for them, or it would cost so little that the discouragement against buying opiates would be less than if there were no licensed proprietors.
If you legalised opiates in such a way as to thereby make it sufficiently cheap, I would certainly buy it whenever I am in pain. They work very nicely. But because they are illegal for me to buy them without a prescription, they cost a lot of money for me to secure them, so I don't. Making these things illegal in various ways is the way that they are discouraged, it seems to me.
The Conservatives Commitment to Internet Surveillance
Interestingly: "None of this is to say the Liberals would be any better. They introduced their own lawful access package many years ago and the reaction of MPs like McTeague in 2009 was "what took you so long." The Liberals point to protection from digital threats in their platform, but do not specifically discuss lawful access. They should be asked about where they stand now (so too for the NDP which marshalled opposition in 2009)."
Looks like NDP are the ones to support on this issue.
The things which are "moral" in the sense of "morally good", and the things for which there are "good reasons" must tend toward the same reference, varying only with what exactly you mean by a "good reason". Certainly any morally good end must have a morally good reason for it to be chosen, insofar as it is possibly an end which is deliberately aimed at by a reasoning person. If some "to be done" thing did not have a good reason to be done (whether accessible or not), then how could it be said to be morally imperative for a reasoning person? Reasoned choice, as a result of pure deliberation, is made purely on the basis of reasons, so the quality of such a choice (as something which is made, as the action of a subject) can only be grounded in the quality of the reasons which ground the choice. So, ceteris paribus, if there are morally good reasons for choosing some thing, the choice of that thing is morally good. And, in the other direction, if the choice of some thing is morally good, then there are morally good reasons for choosing that thing. And any such thing is only described as "morally good" as the choice of it is morally good, in the use or implementation of it, because morality is about what should be willed, but such things don't will, but are rather what are willed (into existence or into some particular arrangement, i.e., they are chosen to be used or implemented in some way). In these senses there is equivalence with the things for which there are good reasons and the things which are moral. So if there is good reason for some social behaviour, then that social behaviour is moral, and if someone uses legislation to implement that social behaviour, then they are using legislation to implement what is moral.
"A right, by definition, does not require action on the part of another."
I assume you're talking about moral rights. I assume you're not talking about legal rights, as those are dependent on the legal system involved, and so could require anything on the part of anyone, depending on how they are defined in legislation. In my country the proper authorities have the legal right to require me to join the military in certain circumstances, and that is plain fact, so you can't be talking about legal rights. You must be talking about moral rights -- which speak to what is morally permissible.
So if someone abducts your child, hides and locks her away, tells me (who nonetheless never wanted this and did everything in his power to avoid this) where she is, and then he kills himself, and you have proof of all of this, then neither you nor anyone else has the right to require me to tell you where she is, as a right does not require an action on the part of another, by definition? You would not be requiring me to refrain from an action, as I am taking no action otherwise, but actually requiring me to tell you, which involves an action of telling, not a refraining.
Or if some mad man has rigged thermonuclear devices which will, with provable certainty, kill every living thing on Earth only unless I in particular, completely unwilling, paint him a picture, then neither you nor anyone else has the right to require me to paint him a picture? You would not be requiring me to refrain from an action, as I am taking no action otherwise, but actually requiring me to paint a picture, which involves an action of painting, not a refraining.
To be honest, constructing examples to test your intuitions seems silly to me anyway, because I have a feeling you just made that up, and really the claim is not based on the definition of a "right", which you don't have, but merely your opinion.
Let's fuck this duck shall we?
Quantity in logic and semantics.
The proposition would have been construed as singular by Aristotle. Kant would accept this, but would also go along with the traditional logicians and treat it here as universal, because this here is not a matter of application of transcendental logic, nor of aesthetic judgement, but rather of general logic, because for such a case as this the singular is saliently just like the universal, for the singular has no domain and so no part of any such domain is excluded from the judgement (which is the salient feature).
I put that last sentence in Kant-fashion just for you.
It's a non-sequitur to point out that the regime which overthrew the last regime while promising a better political/social order has not delivered.
Okay then...
I'm sorry I don't have the silver bullet for the country's woes. An initial idea might be the removal of the Mugabe regime. Pointing out the faults of that regime might actually be a start in the removal of it, actually.
Thank god Mugabe and his supporters overthrew those white supremacists so many years ago, and now the people of Zimbabwe can live in freedom and security.
How would an alternative DNS becoming more commonplace necessarily, or likely, be a "serious problem"? I just do not see it. To note, I disagree with how the distribution of domain names is determined with regards to ICANN-linked registrars (it's not "first come, first served", by the way, or else PETA would not have peta.org*), so on that ground alone I support and use alternative DNS.**
I don't see this demand that one not use an alternative DNS much different from the demand that one use only a standards-compliant browser. No thanks -- I'll display the content the way I want it to display, not the way the content-maker wants. If you want me to read your page with red Comic sans faced text on a yellow background, I'm sorry, I'm going to have to disappoint you and display that as black Times New Roman on white. I know that breaks CSS standards and all, but I'd rather my browser break with standards and display things the way I want rather than the other way around..
*The courts ruled that the original peta.org was not a parody, because the address "peta.org" has only the pretense, and does not make it clear that it is a parody, while this does not occur "simultaneously" with the content, which makes it clear that it is a parody. By this reasoning A Modest Proposal is not parody, because the title has only the pretense.
**I guess you could say that the same courts could all the same take part in determining name distribution for an alternative DNS, but I at least hold hope they would see by then how ridiculous it is -- the system is just one of many and people can take it or leave it, or else you might as well take people to court for modifying their hosts files. Then again, why they can't see that for the case of ICANN-DNS makes that hope somewhat tenuous.
Well "book" is traditionally a feminine noun, so, no.
Your Analytica is alright, but it seems neither did you meditate very much on Categoriae I, where homonymy is defined (which can be forgiven, as things are not so concrete there), nor have you reached De Sophisticis Elenchis where its sophistical use is described (which cannot be forgiven as you should know your entire Organon before you employ any part of it.)
Have you ever been subject to a playing of a Men At Work song? IT DID NOT WORK!
I just changed some settings and then when I plugged in http://www.lbgt2sqqsupport.gay/ Firefox went right to the site for which I was looking. Is Obama planning on changing the fundamental architecture of the internet, or legally barring alternative DNS schemes? Or is he just too stupid to know better, or not in control of his own administration which in turn is too stupid to know better?
You: "Or are you talking about countries run by sharia law?"
Why not?
An Overview of the Egyptian Legal System and Legal Research by Dr. Mohamed S. Abdel Wahab:
So what was your point?
Before you used to be able to log in as you posted a reply, you'd supply login credentials along with the reply materials. So you could come across a message to which you'd like to reply, and do so, no problem. Now, you come across a message, your only real option is this: Press the log in link which takes you to a different page and then supply your credentials, and when it logs you in, it takes you back to the main page! Now, good luck finding the comment again. Usually I don't even bother any more, so I rarely reply to anything.
How is this not begging the question? The question is whether the act was rape, in particular, whether consent was given. You then answer it by saying the act of sex itself was consensual. You premise the answer. And to wonder: If you offer me a cookie, and I assent to taking it, and then you punch me in the face, and say that I consented because you were lying by calling a punch in the face a cookie, I hardly see how you could be telling the truth, that is, that I actually consented.
Let's take another case. I am temporarily rendered insenstive to some extent, and then you offer me sex, having convinced me that your name is Megan Fox and a beautiful and famous actress, and I assent. In reality, you are Dhalka226, an ugly and infamous sex-monger. I hardly see how I could be considered to have consented.
So they'll be removing Nabokov's Lolita and Ada any time now...