How does the scientific method get destroyed by religion? I can see it being ignored periodically but not destroyed in the slightest. Very few parts of most religions cross the scientific method and even less conflict with anything produced by it.
You mean the bombing we had knowledge of and didn't prevent in order to allow our entry into WWII?
We could have relaxed our economic policy towards Japan and issued a stern warning instead of going to war with Germany I guess. Well, we did give Japan a stern warning but it didn't work because we demanded the complete withdrawal of all Japanese troops from French Indochina and China. Japan wasn't worried about us until we started clamping down on them economically for their actions in china and surrounding territories and demanding they cease. The US Secretary of War, Henry L. Stimson, documented in his diary that he had discussions with Roosevelt about how to manipulate Japan "into the position of firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves".
Well, that is we could of until Germany attacked the US which we know they had plans for doing but do not know if those plans were simply provisional contingency plans like we keep on regular basis or an actual strategy they were going to implement at some point in time.
Anyways, the point still stands. The D and R mean nothing beside a president's name as shit happens and it gets dealt with. The GP was factually incorrect. Democrats get us into war too. Available evidence and history shows us that we could have avoided an attack on Perl Harbor by the Japanese but didn't really want to. To say Roosevelt was only responding is a little naive.
Slight correction for you. Downloading is not defined as a copyright violation. Copyright does not protect who gets access to a protected work, just who can copy and distribute it. Downloading does neither unless you stretch the meaning of the word copying to include the machine you are downloading from making and transmitting a copy to you.
And the lost sale/money argument is incorrect. If you own a canoe rental business and I come in the middle of the night when you are closed and use your canoes without paying you, you are still entitled to the rental fees even though there is no noticeable degradation of the property or inability to rent the canoes. It is a process called conversion which is under the theft laws. Copyright restricts access except when the copyright owner allows and if they demand a fee, you accessing without paying that fee is a loss to them of the entire fee because the law has made it that way.
Now, I do not disagree with your overall premise though. Downloading by those who wouldn't normally go and see the movies or buy the CDs likely does help the studios and artists. The alternative would not be them making a purchase, it would be them ignoring the content altogether had an opportunity not risen that allowed them access. So I am confident that if they were not able to download, no sale would happen just as if you put locks on your canoes. But just as I converted your property for my benefit in the canoe scenario, I would be doing the same in downloading your movies and music without payment and you would legally be otherwise entitled to that payment.
Ecological disaster? So the goal posts are moved again I see. There will be no ecological disaster from running out of oil. Perhaps an economical disaster but it is highly unlikely.
The laws of supply and demand will move fast enough to ensure disaster is adverted. However, that is not to say some will not feel pain because of it. But that was not the point of my post. The point was to display the concept the GP was conveying to someone who clearly didn't understand it.
Could wouldn't become more expensive then diamonds. You are missing his entire point which isn't very novel but understood well.
So lets put this in another way. Suppose you are going to build a house out of these resources. Would you build it out of coal which would cost $10 a square foot of living space, or oil that would cost $11 per square foot of living space, or solar and wind that costs $15 per square foot of living space? Suppose you decided on Coal because it was the cheapest and you could get the most for your money. Suppose everyone did so driving the demand up therefore the price of coal goes up. Now suppose the cost of the coal house is $14 per square foot of living space. Your neighbor would likely build his out of oil because again, it is the most economical at the time.
Well, this drives oil up to $16 per square foot of living space and decreasing supplies with the same demand has already taken coal up some more to $17 per square foot of living space. Now I might chose solar and wind because it is cheaper at $15 per square foot of living space. As the resources deplete and cost more, demand will change because people will start switching to the more economical resources.
Did that illustrate it simple enough for you to understand? As demand goes up or stays the same and supply decreases, the prices increase. When the prices increase past the costs of other resources, people switch to the other resources halting or slowing the increasing of the pricing and the depletion of the resource. Eventually, if you run out of a resource, society will be off it long before that happens and it will not be because society is dependent on that resource unless it is some magical resource with some special property that cannot be found anywhere else and no one can ever engineer around it.
lol.. I see you took and passed the course on liberal debate and politics. Your little diatribe addressed nothing the poster said and did nothing but attempt to attack him. I guess you really do fear them tea partiers or something. I know their calm and straight forward approach backed by facts (or what appears to be facts) is scary when the most you got is emotional name calling and attempted insults. But I would challenge you to take this opportunity to search why your ideology leaves you so incapable of addressing his points and you have to resort to name calling and attempted insults. I suggest it has more to do with your beliefs then his.
The oil we used today is as cheap as almost any other time in life. Efficiencies in process techniques and new processes have made this so.
This is what I don't understand from all the we are out of oil doom and gloom'ers. They say we need to adapt and change because we are running out of a resource but refuse to accept that the industry harvesting that resource has adapted and changed to cope with decline in the resources.
The US is poised to become the top oil producing nation in 2015.
If you consider all the other resources like Coal and Natural Gas, the doom and gloom will only be a slow transition to other resources over a period of several decades or more. And even the article I linked to is basing it's analysis on current tech. Any advancements or innovation can easily change it's predictions on the future output of oil.
I don't think the pilot would turn off the GPS transmitter in case of fire, he would turn off the electrical circuit powering it. Of course that could be dealt with by a battery and a circuit inside the unit that isolates it from the electrical system if it is ever disabled for any reason. I believe that's how the automatic electrical switches work for whole house generators, they isolate the internal circuits from the utility power until the utility power is restored.
Its not terribly more difficult for other then cars.
A few years back, a friend's daughter was headed to South America for some missionary work and would be in some what we consider to be dangerous countries (lots of kidnappings, armed rebels or drug cartels and so on). We found UN approved asset tracking devices a little larger then a credit card but about 5 times as thick. Probably about the size of a small smart phone but before those became popular.
A satellite can ping them, they ping back and a network of satellites coordinate its position. They have several methods of communications including cellular networks. Because it is normally passive, the battery life is on the order of 5 years unless it is transmitting a lot. It's designed to go onto heavy equipment, supply shipment containers and so on so they can be located around the world including in the cargo bay of cargo ships or the middle of a jungle or on a job site in the middle of a big city.
The thought was that if something happened to her, we could get close to finding her location by locating her belongings and perhaps her too. Of course we would have needed to rely on the authorities to trust us on the claim of location which is why we specifically chose a UN approved device. Thankfully, it was just an unnecessary item she had to lug around as she was quite a bit safer then he initially thought but it put her father at ease.
There are devices that could go years without power that could be used to locate just about anything. I guess the problem would be people knowing about it because if you know, you can disable or remove. So security by obscurity might be somewhat valid in a case or situation like this. But I would assume it can be done if the costs weren't prohibitive. I think the one my friend used set him back about 5 grand including the monitoring and all for the 9 months she was gone.
It also falls when you consider that the pilot can simply dump the fuel once he is out past a point of no return and force a crash when the remaining fuel runs out. He could even accelerate that crash by flying faster or slower then optimal speed and altitude.
777s have knowingly dumped their fuel in the past to make emergency landings and such.
People have suspected the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center of being turned into political entity ever since James Hanson started using it as credentials for his global warming activism. Its no wonder why congress continues to limit funding for NASA.
Wow, when the truth and facts are a troll due to someone's preconcieved political notions that have no basis in reality, we are in seriously bad shape. The fact is, shit happens and the difference between a D or an R beside a president's name has little to do with them having to deal with it and often war is an inevitable ends to dealing with it. Although war is also seldom used in comparison to the amount of shit that happens.
If I call myself a christian but do not go to church, violate every single commandment and do not acknowledge Jesus was ever alive, am I really a christian?
Was Hilter's socialist Germany really representative of socialism or communism? Was Stalin's socialism actually socialism.
I think we are adults here and being so, we can actually be realistic in our interpretations of real world events. Fraud and stolen goods are actually against the law are they not? So you do not really think people violating the law is actually part of capitalism do you? Or do you think it is more like people trying to exploit capitalism or the people involved in it?
Yes and the FBI has always performed numerous illegal tactics, false testimony, false statements, in order to make sure bullshit cases that have really no evidence to the offending charges, can go to trial or entrap someone to make a plea deal.
So what was done here beside piling charges on and then removing them once they were challenged?
"making threats to an FBI agent and his family." what could have said did he actually threaten to kill him and his family? Or did he threaten to write up a story on him and his family to drag him thru the mud? SO its okay for the feds to do it, but not okay for someone to fight fire with fire?
It is illegal any time you threaten or retaliate unlawfully on any public employee or elected official over something they did in the course of their employment. If he just did it, it wouldn't be illegal but when he threatens because of performing a responsibility of the job, it became illegal. That's the law as it is written. It can be challenged in court but as of now, your elected representatives intended to have it law and a duly elected president signed it into law so it is the law that has to be followed until it is repealed or overturned.
He is a journalist, and was suppose to have protections, hiding the laptops protects any information either about people involved, or incriminating evidence that he knows will be used against him. Freedom of Press allows that. [it used to anyway]
I'm pretty sure it doesn't work that way. I'm prejudging my interpretations on actually real world examples and not theory spouted as a defense or ideal.
Whether you like the guy or not, it is these types of cases that have allowed the government to take away more and more freedoms from not only the press [the mainstream press peddle government BS anyway and really are worthless] but from the people.
The only way these kind of cases can allow the government to take more and more freedoms away from the people is for it to either not come to conclusion or to have the hyperbole associated with it overwhelm the facts making it more then what it is. In the later scenario, everything will be considered fine up until the exaggerations happen which doesn't seem to have happened in this case.
Anyways, if it is as you say, then either the government can already do as it pleases or the courts will stop them and the only way for that to happen is for the courts to stop them or allow it to happen. Courts are not supposed to be subject to public opinion, only juries.
That is assuming that would be a goal. But if a country wanted to send spy planes to an area to spy on it without causing an uproar, this would be the perfect opportunity to do so.
However, assuming the plane itself was the intended goal, it wouldn't be that hard to get it into the air and to a destination. Few civil radar installations can actually tell the difference between the types of planes so simply filing an flight plan under a large private jet, tuning the transponders to represent that private plane, and then entering some air space following the plan would be pretty easy. A radar worker will all the sudden see the plane, look at it's transponder signal, find that there is a flight plan, ignore it.
As for the people on board, simply tell them bad weather or a volcanic eruption caused them to divert to another location, land and kill them all after they exit the craft. If it is a remote island, even if they run, there is little to worry about the likelihood of a Hollywood hero being in the mix that can Die Hard their way to foiling the plot is minimal.
James A Polk, a democrat got us into the Mexican American war Woodrow Wilson, another democrat got us into World War 1. Franklin D. Roosevelt, yet another democrat got us into World War 2 While Eisenhower was president when the US sent military advisers into French Indochina, it was Kennedy that tripled out presence in 1961 and again in tripling it in 1962 and started our actual intervention into the battles with US troops instead of collaborating with the south on strategy and training it's military.
Your comment should read only modern democrat presidents issue warnings. You might also say they fail to back them up when someone crosses their red lines and all but that is probably going overboard.
I think you missed his point in your rush to judge him. He says it's got to be one of them because the Military industrial complex is running out of money.
Or in other words, it can be anyone in his mind, because one of those two will get the blame in order to generate revenue for a couple companies.
Re:How about defining an epoch from pi day?
on
Happy Pi Day
·
· Score: 1
I would think writing it as it is spoken would be the most unambiguous format possible. To insist otherwise is a lot like demanding 3 be pronounced as two or cat instead of as three.
Re:How about defining an epoch from pi day?
on
Happy Pi Day
·
· Score: 1
Exactly which is why the GP's point is just as valid as any in base 10 or base 2. Its an arbitrary point of reference.
Re:How about defining an epoch from pi day?
on
Happy Pi Day
·
· Score: 1
Only if you ignore all the computers and calculators from befor electronics. Yes, i mean the people that used to fill calculation rooms and compute complexed math problems for sales drones, business processes, and loan officers.
Its not like the term computer was born in the 70s.
Slashdot Mirror
How does the scientific method get destroyed by religion? I can see it being ignored periodically but not destroyed in the slightest. Very few parts of most religions cross the scientific method and even less conflict with anything produced by it.
You mean the bombing we had knowledge of and didn't prevent in order to allow our entry into WWII?
We could have relaxed our economic policy towards Japan and issued a stern warning instead of going to war with Germany I guess. Well, we did give Japan a stern warning but it didn't work because we demanded the complete withdrawal of all Japanese troops from French Indochina and China. Japan wasn't worried about us until we started clamping down on them economically for their actions in china and surrounding territories and demanding they cease. The US Secretary of War, Henry L. Stimson, documented in his diary that he had discussions with Roosevelt about how to manipulate Japan "into the position of firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves".
Well, that is we could of until Germany attacked the US which we know they had plans for doing but do not know if those plans were simply provisional contingency plans like we keep on regular basis or an actual strategy they were going to implement at some point in time.
Anyways, the point still stands. The D and R mean nothing beside a president's name as shit happens and it gets dealt with. The GP was factually incorrect. Democrats get us into war too. Available evidence and history shows us that we could have avoided an attack on Perl Harbor by the Japanese but didn't really want to. To say Roosevelt was only responding is a little naive.
I guess then both ways are just as valid and all this bickering is pedantic BS over personal preference rather than logic or anything of value.
Hence we are back to the real world.
Slight correction for you. Downloading is not defined as a copyright violation. Copyright does not protect who gets access to a protected work, just who can copy and distribute it. Downloading does neither unless you stretch the meaning of the word copying to include the machine you are downloading from making and transmitting a copy to you.
And the lost sale/money argument is incorrect. If you own a canoe rental business and I come in the middle of the night when you are closed and use your canoes without paying you, you are still entitled to the rental fees even though there is no noticeable degradation of the property or inability to rent the canoes. It is a process called conversion which is under the theft laws. Copyright restricts access except when the copyright owner allows and if they demand a fee, you accessing without paying that fee is a loss to them of the entire fee because the law has made it that way.
Now, I do not disagree with your overall premise though. Downloading by those who wouldn't normally go and see the movies or buy the CDs likely does help the studios and artists. The alternative would not be them making a purchase, it would be them ignoring the content altogether had an opportunity not risen that allowed them access. So I am confident that if they were not able to download, no sale would happen just as if you put locks on your canoes. But just as I converted your property for my benefit in the canoe scenario, I would be doing the same in downloading your movies and music without payment and you would legally be otherwise entitled to that payment.
Ecological disaster? So the goal posts are moved again I see. There will be no ecological disaster from running out of oil. Perhaps an economical disaster but it is highly unlikely.
The laws of supply and demand will move fast enough to ensure disaster is adverted. However, that is not to say some will not feel pain because of it. But that was not the point of my post. The point was to display the concept the GP was conveying to someone who clearly didn't understand it.
Could wouldn't become more expensive then diamonds. You are missing his entire point which isn't very novel but understood well.
So lets put this in another way. Suppose you are going to build a house out of these resources. Would you build it out of coal which would cost $10 a square foot of living space, or oil that would cost $11 per square foot of living space, or solar and wind that costs $15 per square foot of living space? Suppose you decided on Coal because it was the cheapest and you could get the most for your money. Suppose everyone did so driving the demand up therefore the price of coal goes up. Now suppose the cost of the coal house is $14 per square foot of living space. Your neighbor would likely build his out of oil because again, it is the most economical at the time.
Well, this drives oil up to $16 per square foot of living space and decreasing supplies with the same demand has already taken coal up some more to $17 per square foot of living space. Now I might chose solar and wind because it is cheaper at $15 per square foot of living space. As the resources deplete and cost more, demand will change because people will start switching to the more economical resources.
Did that illustrate it simple enough for you to understand? As demand goes up or stays the same and supply decreases, the prices increase. When the prices increase past the costs of other resources, people switch to the other resources halting or slowing the increasing of the pricing and the depletion of the resource. Eventually, if you run out of a resource, society will be off it long before that happens and it will not be because society is dependent on that resource unless it is some magical resource with some special property that cannot be found anywhere else and no one can ever engineer around it.
lol.. I see you took and passed the course on liberal debate and politics. Your little diatribe addressed nothing the poster said and did nothing but attempt to attack him. I guess you really do fear them tea partiers or something. I know their calm and straight forward approach backed by facts (or what appears to be facts) is scary when the most you got is emotional name calling and attempted insults. But I would challenge you to take this opportunity to search why your ideology leaves you so incapable of addressing his points and you have to resort to name calling and attempted insults. I suggest it has more to do with your beliefs then his.
I think he knows that. He just doesn't like the right wing and religious nutters being involved.
The oil we used today is as cheap as almost any other time in life. Efficiencies in process techniques and new processes have made this so.
This is what I don't understand from all the we are out of oil doom and gloom'ers. They say we need to adapt and change because we are running out of a resource but refuse to accept that the industry harvesting that resource has adapted and changed to cope with decline in the resources.
The US is poised to become the top oil producing nation in 2015.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...
If you consider all the other resources like Coal and Natural Gas, the doom and gloom will only be a slow transition to other resources over a period of several decades or more. And even the article I linked to is basing it's analysis on current tech. Any advancements or innovation can easily change it's predictions on the future output of oil.
I don't think the pilot would turn off the GPS transmitter in case of fire, he would turn off the electrical circuit powering it. Of course that could be dealt with by a battery and a circuit inside the unit that isolates it from the electrical system if it is ever disabled for any reason. I believe that's how the automatic electrical switches work for whole house generators, they isolate the internal circuits from the utility power until the utility power is restored.
Its not terribly more difficult for other then cars.
A few years back, a friend's daughter was headed to South America for some missionary work and would be in some what we consider to be dangerous countries (lots of kidnappings, armed rebels or drug cartels and so on). We found UN approved asset tracking devices a little larger then a credit card but about 5 times as thick. Probably about the size of a small smart phone but before those became popular.
A satellite can ping them, they ping back and a network of satellites coordinate its position. They have several methods of communications including cellular networks. Because it is normally passive, the battery life is on the order of 5 years unless it is transmitting a lot. It's designed to go onto heavy equipment, supply shipment containers and so on so they can be located around the world including in the cargo bay of cargo ships or the middle of a jungle or on a job site in the middle of a big city.
The thought was that if something happened to her, we could get close to finding her location by locating her belongings and perhaps her too. Of course we would have needed to rely on the authorities to trust us on the claim of location which is why we specifically chose a UN approved device. Thankfully, it was just an unnecessary item she had to lug around as she was quite a bit safer then he initially thought but it put her father at ease.
There are devices that could go years without power that could be used to locate just about anything. I guess the problem would be people knowing about it because if you know, you can disable or remove. So security by obscurity might be somewhat valid in a case or situation like this. But I would assume it can be done if the costs weren't prohibitive. I think the one my friend used set him back about 5 grand including the monitoring and all for the 9 months she was gone.
It also falls when you consider that the pilot can simply dump the fuel once he is out past a point of no return and force a crash when the remaining fuel runs out. He could even accelerate that crash by flying faster or slower then optimal speed and altitude.
777s have knowingly dumped their fuel in the past to make emergency landings and such.
http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/loc...
People have suspected the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center of being turned into political entity ever since James Hanson started using it as credentials for his global warming activism. Its no wonder why congress continues to limit funding for NASA.
Wow, when the truth and facts are a troll due to someone's preconcieved political notions that have no basis in reality, we are in seriously bad shape. The fact is, shit happens and the difference between a D or an R beside a president's name has little to do with them having to deal with it and often war is an inevitable ends to dealing with it. Although war is also seldom used in comparison to the amount of shit that happens.
If I call myself a christian but do not go to church, violate every single commandment and do not acknowledge Jesus was ever alive, am I really a christian?
Was Hilter's socialist Germany really representative of socialism or communism? Was Stalin's socialism actually socialism.
I think we are adults here and being so, we can actually be realistic in our interpretations of real world events. Fraud and stolen goods are actually against the law are they not? So you do not really think people violating the law is actually part of capitalism do you? Or do you think it is more like people trying to exploit capitalism or the people involved in it?
So what was done here beside piling charges on and then removing them once they were challenged?
It is illegal any time you threaten or retaliate unlawfully on any public employee or elected official over something they did in the course of their employment. If he just did it, it wouldn't be illegal but when he threatens because of performing a responsibility of the job, it became illegal. That's the law as it is written. It can be challenged in court but as of now, your elected representatives intended to have it law and a duly elected president signed it into law so it is the law that has to be followed until it is repealed or overturned.
I'm pretty sure it doesn't work that way. I'm prejudging my interpretations on actually real world examples and not theory spouted as a defense or ideal.
The only way these kind of cases can allow the government to take more and more freedoms away from the people is for it to either not come to conclusion or to have the hyperbole associated with it overwhelm the facts making it more then what it is. In the later scenario, everything will be considered fine up until the exaggerations happen which doesn't seem to have happened in this case.
Anyways, if it is as you say, then either the government can already do as it pleases or the courts will stop them and the only way for that to happen is for the courts to stop them or allow it to happen. Courts are not supposed to be subject to public opinion, only juries.
Is there any law or process to make prison rape legal?
I mean seriously, that is what we are talking about here, legal due process. Are you saying he was prison raped or something?
That is assuming that would be a goal. But if a country wanted to send spy planes to an area to spy on it without causing an uproar, this would be the perfect opportunity to do so.
However, assuming the plane itself was the intended goal, it wouldn't be that hard to get it into the air and to a destination. Few civil radar installations can actually tell the difference between the types of planes so simply filing an flight plan under a large private jet, tuning the transponders to represent that private plane, and then entering some air space following the plan would be pretty easy. A radar worker will all the sudden see the plane, look at it's transponder signal, find that there is a flight plan, ignore it.
As for the people on board, simply tell them bad weather or a volcanic eruption caused them to divert to another location, land and kill them all after they exit the craft. If it is a remote island, even if they run, there is little to worry about the likelihood of a Hollywood hero being in the mix that can Die Hard their way to foiling the plot is minimal.
Really?
James A Polk, a democrat got us into the Mexican American war
Woodrow Wilson, another democrat got us into World War 1.
Franklin D. Roosevelt, yet another democrat got us into World War 2
While Eisenhower was president when the US sent military advisers into French Indochina, it was Kennedy that tripled out presence in 1961 and again in tripling it in 1962 and started our actual intervention into the battles with US troops instead of collaborating with the south on strategy and training it's military.
Your comment should read only modern democrat presidents issue warnings. You might also say they fail to back them up when someone crosses their red lines and all but that is probably going overboard.
I think you missed his point in your rush to judge him. He says it's got to be one of them because the Military industrial complex is running out of money.
Or in other words, it can be anyone in his mind, because one of those two will get the blame in order to generate revenue for a couple companies.
No, i am not lost.
I would think writing it as it is spoken would be the most unambiguous format possible. To insist otherwise is a lot like demanding 3 be pronounced as two or cat instead of as three.
Exactly which is why the GP's point is just as valid as any in base 10 or base 2. Its an arbitrary point of reference.
Despite that being a hoax, biblical pi is about the same as pi itself once you realize the wall of the bowl had thickness to it
http://www.purplemath.com/modu...
Only if you ignore all the computers and calculators from befor electronics. Yes, i mean the people that used to fill calculation rooms and compute complexed math problems for sales drones, business processes, and loan officers.
Its not like the term computer was born in the 70s.