Sexual promiscuity is not immoral, it is in fact completely natural.
Having sex is not immoral, and is completely natural. Jumping from partner to partner is a series of one-night stands or short term relationships is harmful. It is an addictive behavior where the person involved does it to get a momentary high, then is left feeling empty afterward. People who engage are often in denial about the consequences their actions (either to themselves or to others).
One thing that people who engage in this behavior like to point out is that the people on the side of "sexual morality" often have it even worse. They get over involved in relationships early on and are stuck with a bad marriage for years which ends in a contentious divorce. Or they spend their entire lives chasing after the illusion of an ideal relationship that is unattainable. Or they join a religious following that encourages them to blow themselves up to advance someone's political agenda. The problem with this thinking is that simply pointing out that the other person is more wrong than you, does not prove that what you are doing is right.
The claim of "casual sex" is dangerous because it is hard to draw from ones experience an example of it working out well (I am speaking from my own experience). And from a logical perspective, it doesn't make sense to claim that sex is no big deal and then expend a lot of energy and endure a number of risks to pursue it.
Other people will argue that speed limits and income tax are a violation of their natural born freedoms and need to be abolished.
Aren't they? Few people follow the speed limit, and most people are capable of discerning the appropriate speed on their own. And almost no one wants to pay taxes. How did accepthing these things become the norm? We are becoming a nation of children who need to be told what to do by the Government. People need to be treated with dignity and respect. If you treat them like a bunch of children, that's how they behave.
It being class action lawsuit just means there are multiple affected parties, it doesn't mean a lot of people were involved. Certainly not enough that in the couple dozen people I know with the device you could find one that sued.
Also, this lawsuit is from 2008, and involved the 3G (2 generations ago) so it would not be relevant to a present day purchasing decision.
Any logical argument is only as good as the assumptions which went into it. I'm not saying that logic and quantitative analysis are useless, but they are never perfect or complete. A reasonable person must take emotions when making decisions. And if you are a human being, your emotions influence your decisions, so if you don't realize that you are in denial (which is highly illogical). You are every bit as guilty of making snap judgements as any woman if you don't realize that.
As a side note, I've never seen an iPhone user change their mind about their purchase. Ever. I don't believe that everyone I know who has an iPhone (inculding myself, and my entire immediate family) is an overly emotional nutcase.
Citizens have a right to privacy from the government. The government has no inherent right to privacy from the citizens.
I think you've got that backwards.
If I'm kept in the dark about the details of important actions committed by my government, what hope do I have to ever make a truly informed decision when it comes time to vote?
Don't worry about, politicians aren't truthful about their intentions or what they're capable of when they run for office. That means democracy is doomed to fail regardless of whether or not they manage keep secrets from you.
Honesty is good whether or not others respond in kind. It's good for you physically and emotionally. If you are honest, you don't have to worry about your dark secrets being exposed. It allows people to know who you are, so that they don't become you enemy later on when they figure out you're not who they thought you were. It allows you the freedom to be true to yourself so you can stop pretending to be someone else.
It's true that you won't be rich or have sex with the attractive women, or run for political office. But those things aren't really that great. People who have them seem just as miserable as everyone else.
I don't think so. All mam-made systems seem to fall into a state of disrepair without continuing intervention. I hope that after a while the government will go away and I won't have to worry about it anymore. I suspect, however, that the people who want to keep it going will win out.
It would be completely impossible to hold Bush or the board of BP accountable for what they've done because they are just people like anyone else. Billionaires only have a couple billion dollars, not enough pay for the oil-spill. Bush has only one life, while his wars cost thousands. You could only ever establish the pretense of accountability. Even if you took everything these men have, you could never truly hold them accountable.
The pretense of accountability that is common in western nations is not adequate for me to believe there is a difference between the two. In practice there is zero accountability.
I'd say all parties involved are being assholes. But I am much more afraid of being on the wrong side of the government than anonymous. That tells me the government makes a better use of fear and intimidation and is therefore the bigger bully. Maybe anonymous would do the same if they could, but they can't.
As far as what is right, it's not right for people to be imprisoned for sharing copyrighted works. It's not right to DDOS someone's server. But I don't really wish to argue about which is less right.
Some people consider imprisonment to be the use of force and intimidation. DDOS attacks seem tame in comparison. I suppose maybe you care a lot about whether the use of such tactics is "criminal" but that only depends who is writing the laws.
It turns out the fuel itself is only a small fraction of the total cost of a rocket launch. Turning to a more complex air breathing launch mechanism raises the overall cost, rather than lowering it, because of the technical difficulty involved.
In practice, establishing rules for this kind of thing doesn't work. Rules only work when they are designed to promote social cohesion (i.e. driving on the same side of the road, stopping for red lights, communications protocols, linguistic rules, building codes, standards, etc. ..). Rules intended to prevent crime are ineffective because criminals intend to commit crime and therefore have an easy time ignoring or skirting rules. Rules intended to promote social cohesion are effective because people want to fit into society and have an easy time of things.
I'm going to have to agree with the others. It doesn't matter if it was a setup. The government is way out of line on this. And it's not a new thing, people have been upset about it for a long time. The new "enhanced" pat-down procedure is farther than most people are willing to go when it's just the first date and the government needs to learn to respect our boundaries.
The secret to surviving a deer is to drive a truck of 1/2 ton or heavier, with the optional 4X4 package that jacks the truck up a few inches so the deer doesn't go over the hood.
How could any sane person support the war effort if they know large numbers of innocent civilians were being killed. Are people really just like "well, if you want to make an omelet you gotta break some eggs." Who thinks like that? These are real people with real lives.
Also, why would the government keep the killings secret if people knew about them anyway? Wouldn't that just be a huge waste of time and money?
You really shouldn't have put the Post Office on there, because both UPS and FedEX are clearly more efficient (dramatically so).
As for insurance, that's really a matter of opinion, right? Obviously, the most efficient way to give away money it to hand it to some random person on the street. The question is what do you want to accomplish by giving it away. Social Security and medicare want to avoid fraud. But insurance companies want to avoid any payment at all. I'd say that insurance companies do a better job of avoiding making payments than the government does at avoiding fraud. I wouldn't say the do a better job of providing the service their customers are paying for (they are basically a scam). They don't do a worse job either, at least not measurably so.
I highly doubt that the entire legal profession will disappear overnight.
Actually, that's exactly how it will happen if things keep going the way they are now. There's too much dead weight, and there's more and more every day. Eventually the whole thing will be overspent and it will collapse into civil unrest. That is, unless we all pull our heads out of our asses and stop engaging in this kind of nonsense.
Slashdot Mirror
Having sex is not immoral, and is completely natural. Jumping from partner to partner is a series of one-night stands or short term relationships is harmful. It is an addictive behavior where the person involved does it to get a momentary high, then is left feeling empty afterward. People who engage are often in denial about the consequences their actions (either to themselves or to others).
One thing that people who engage in this behavior like to point out is that the people on the side of "sexual morality" often have it even worse. They get over involved in relationships early on and are stuck with a bad marriage for years which ends in a contentious divorce. Or they spend their entire lives chasing after the illusion of an ideal relationship that is unattainable. Or they join a religious following that encourages them to blow themselves up to advance someone's political agenda. The problem with this thinking is that simply pointing out that the other person is more wrong than you, does not prove that what you are doing is right.
The claim of "casual sex" is dangerous because it is hard to draw from ones experience an example of it working out well (I am speaking from my own experience). And from a logical perspective, it doesn't make sense to claim that sex is no big deal and then expend a lot of energy and endure a number of risks to pursue it.
I recall reading it in the news at the time.
Aren't they? Few people follow the speed limit, and most people are capable of discerning the appropriate speed on their own. And almost no one wants to pay taxes. How did accepthing these things become the norm? We are becoming a nation of children who need to be told what to do by the Government. People need to be treated with dignity and respect. If you treat them like a bunch of children, that's how they behave.
Did you notice any preceding lines?
But are they actually returning them, or are they just saying that to stroke your ego?
My comment said more than just that. You should read past the subject line for my in-depth analysis.
It being class action lawsuit just means there are multiple affected parties, it doesn't mean a lot of people were involved. Certainly not enough that in the couple dozen people I know with the device you could find one that sued.
Also, this lawsuit is from 2008, and involved the 3G (2 generations ago) so it would not be relevant to a present day purchasing decision.
Also, you are an idiot.
Any logical argument is only as good as the assumptions which went into it. I'm not saying that logic and quantitative analysis are useless, but they are never perfect or complete. A reasonable person must take emotions when making decisions. And if you are a human being, your emotions influence your decisions, so if you don't realize that you are in denial (which is highly illogical). You are every bit as guilty of making snap judgements as any woman if you don't realize that.
As a side note, I've never seen an iPhone user change their mind about their purchase. Ever. I don't believe that everyone I know who has an iPhone (inculding myself, and my entire immediate family) is an overly emotional nutcase.
True.
I think you've got that backwards.
Don't worry about, politicians aren't truthful about their intentions or what they're capable of when they run for office. That means democracy is doomed to fail regardless of whether or not they manage keep secrets from you.
Honesty is good whether or not others respond in kind. It's good for you physically and emotionally. If you are honest, you don't have to worry about your dark secrets being exposed. It allows people to know who you are, so that they don't become you enemy later on when they figure out you're not who they thought you were. It allows you the freedom to be true to yourself so you can stop pretending to be someone else.
It's true that you won't be rich or have sex with the attractive women, or run for political office. But those things aren't really that great. People who have them seem just as miserable as everyone else.
I don't think so. All mam-made systems seem to fall into a state of disrepair without continuing intervention. I hope that after a while the government will go away and I won't have to worry about it anymore. I suspect, however, that the people who want to keep it going will win out.
I want quitters to fill all government positions. The less they do the better.
It would be completely impossible to hold Bush or the board of BP accountable for what they've done because they are just people like anyone else. Billionaires only have a couple billion dollars, not enough pay for the oil-spill. Bush has only one life, while his wars cost thousands. You could only ever establish the pretense of accountability. Even if you took everything these men have, you could never truly hold them accountable.
The pretense of accountability that is common in western nations is not adequate for me to believe there is a difference between the two. In practice there is zero accountability.
I'd say all parties involved are being assholes. But I am much more afraid of being on the wrong side of the government than anonymous. That tells me the government makes a better use of fear and intimidation and is therefore the bigger bully. Maybe anonymous would do the same if they could, but they can't.
As far as what is right, it's not right for people to be imprisoned for sharing copyrighted works. It's not right to DDOS someone's server. But I don't really wish to argue about which is less right.
Some people consider imprisonment to be the use of force and intimidation. DDOS attacks seem tame in comparison. I suppose maybe you care a lot about whether the use of such tactics is "criminal" but that only depends who is writing the laws.
It turns out the fuel itself is only a small fraction of the total cost of a rocket launch. Turning to a more complex air breathing launch mechanism raises the overall cost, rather than lowering it, because of the technical difficulty involved.
In practice, establishing rules for this kind of thing doesn't work. Rules only work when they are designed to promote social cohesion (i.e. driving on the same side of the road, stopping for red lights, communications protocols, linguistic rules, building codes, standards, etc. . .). Rules intended to prevent crime are ineffective because criminals intend to commit crime and therefore have an easy time ignoring or skirting rules. Rules intended to promote social cohesion are effective because people want to fit into society and have an easy time of things.
I'm going to have to agree with the others. It doesn't matter if it was a setup. The government is way out of line on this. And it's not a new thing, people have been upset about it for a long time. The new "enhanced" pat-down procedure is farther than most people are willing to go when it's just the first date and the government needs to learn to respect our boundaries.
Maybe a better word would be "first".
Not everybody needs such a vehicle.
It sounds like you are well on you way to understanding why private companies are more efficient.
How could any sane person support the war effort if they know large numbers of innocent civilians were being killed. Are people really just like "well, if you want to make an omelet you gotta break some eggs." Who thinks like that? These are real people with real lives.
Also, why would the government keep the killings secret if people knew about them anyway? Wouldn't that just be a huge waste of time and money?
You really shouldn't have put the Post Office on there, because both UPS and FedEX are clearly more efficient (dramatically so).
As for insurance, that's really a matter of opinion, right? Obviously, the most efficient way to give away money it to hand it to some random person on the street. The question is what do you want to accomplish by giving it away. Social Security and medicare want to avoid fraud. But insurance companies want to avoid any payment at all. I'd say that insurance companies do a better job of avoiding making payments than the government does at avoiding fraud. I wouldn't say the do a better job of providing the service their customers are paying for (they are basically a scam). They don't do a worse job either, at least not measurably so.
Actually, that's exactly how it will happen if things keep going the way they are now. There's too much dead weight, and there's more and more every day. Eventually the whole thing will be overspent and it will collapse into civil unrest. That is, unless we all pull our heads out of our asses and stop engaging in this kind of nonsense.
That's what they always say. Yet somehow, complying fully with government regulations is an impossible nightmare.