for instance, I am pretty sure not only from the wording, but the fact that you posted AC that the accusations you made are illustrative of what you see as a problem and not a direct accusation of the person names being any one or part of those things.
However, had you been claiming to be, and identified as such, Eddie Talbot's closest friend and ally, or perhaps someone with something to gain over making those statements, they could be much more believable as being real. This is part of the problem with libel. It's not just what was said, but the context of what was said and by whom. On election day, saying that someone was arrested at a polling booth implies more then just that. It implies there was a reason why and you should get out and vote against them.
What would be nice is if the truth would be an affirmative defense to libel. But people can craft statements that are technically accurate, but not representative of the truth. For instance, I could probably say you had sex with a 14 or 16 year old and it would be true. I'm assuming you might have had a sexual encounter in high school. But if you are 48 years old when I make that statement without reference to it happening when you were 14 or 16 too, the reality of the situation becomes all distorted and way more negative then the complete truth would imply.
The government doesn't get involved with parents and children for taking medication or drinking. There had to have been some underlying cause for the entire drinking or medication to even be relevant in the first place.
In this case, it was a custody case in which one parent was saying I'm a better environment/person/provider/whatever then she is. This is the only reason why drinking or mental medication was even relevant.
All other things being equal, would someone not taking their prescription medication or boozing it up be a better or worse or equal environment for a child. You see, this is literally about the best and worst case arrangement for the kid(s) when compared between two distinct scenarios. The only reason why it's about drinking or medication is because someone is specifically saying it's not as good as over here.
see if I was asking for the IP it would be like asking for a phone record.
I'd then apply to do a write tap on the communication... collect further evidence relating the information gathered directly to individuals. and make any arrests if I found those individuals where breaking the law.
It was.. The court order was challenged on the grounds that it would violate the first amendment (free speech) rights of the people the information was sought after. The court said in the challenge, that the first amendment actions of the people in question have already been made public.
This order from the court wasn't an order saying "you have to give anything the government wants to them". It was saying you have to comply with an earlier warrant.
anyone can rob me for my phone, I am not my phone number.
Good point. People consider their phone numbers to be private yet they are published in a directory that most government agencies can access easily.
No, it's an alternative. Either an IP address is linked to a person or it isn't. If it isn't, there is no reason to provide it, because that's why anybody might want a court to give it to them. If it is, it's private, so the court shouldn't be giving it out.
Actually,no. This is the exact reason why a court is involved in the first place.
The government only has a limited right to private information. In order to secure that right, they need to get the court to agree they have a need that overcomes your rights to keep that information private. The court absolutely should be giving the information out if the conditions accorded to by law have been met to it's satisfaction.
You can't say that it isn't private because it isn't identifying and then turn around and say that the court will therefore order it be given over so that the account holder can be identified. It has to be one or the other, and in either case turning it over is the the wrong thing to do.
The issue isn't whether it's private or not in the literal sense. Many pieces of very private information are made public every day, but that doesn't make them any less private. The issue is really whether or not there is an expectation of it remaining private and/or if a need to gain access to that information outweighs certain expectations. The court didn't say twitter had to give the information to anyone asking, it said it had to give it to specific people asking who were citing a specific reason.
So yes, it can be private and not private at the same time. I'm betting your parents and other members of your family know private things about you. They can blab that to others without it ever being no private. For instance, My last medical physical asked questions about people in my family that had certain illnesses or diseases. Blanket exceptions do not bode well when we are dealing with specific information.
Actually, science speaks very little of religion, the only exceptions are studies that revolve about that subject or human nature, but fields like physics and such ignore the subject altogether.
I agree. Which is why I was confused to why people claim science disproved or refutes a religion or god.
Human nature. You can't use science to prove or disprove a god, but a lot of people fail to grasp that. Some people see 'god' as the god of gaps, and when we make a new discovery that conflicts with a religious text, some will claim this proves that god doesn't exist. It's irrational and stems from a poor understanding of science & logic.
I agree here too.
Your rights are always bestowed by society, the reason why society gives you those rights might be rooted in religion and the belief in a creator, but in the end it is society as a whole who bestows the rights and duties of the members of said society. This discussion would involve morality and ethics, and that's a whole other game.
Well, correct, but I guess the religion aspect is a motivational compass with society so it's more of the reason to why they bestow the rights then where the rights come from. I probably could have worded that better.
I'm not the one whom brought up religion in this thread, that was someone else, as to why i discuss these things? Because i find it oddly fascinating how some people can hold onto a belief even if presented with evidence that their belief is wrong, this applies to specific claims of course, such as evolution, or the age of the earth or heck, even the moon landing. The way some people react to that amuses and fascinates me.
You see, here is the funny thing. The age of the earth and everything about evolution, is just a way we understand things in order to use them to our benefit. Because we understand them this way doesn't mean they are right and any religion or god is wrong as it could very well be that both are right with the difference that science requires the possibility of being wrong. The moon landing, I see as a different set of situations as it can actually be tested to some degree. But as for the age of the earth, if it naturally occurred, the scientific understanding is most likely accurate. Well, as accurate as our collection of knowledge will allow. But this doesn't rule out any religious beliefs, it just creates a tool that we can exploit to our advantage.
So the existence of that knowledge and the use of it does not mean the religion is wrong (unless you are going to make a religious argument to why the religion is wrong).
I think before I muddle the message any further, I should be very specific with it. Science is a tool for understanding, using, and taking advantage of nature around us. Religion can give us depth and meaning to questions of life and purpose and is mostly philosophical- even when it makes statements about something science has determined to be different. Just because we understand something to be a certain way in science does not mean it wasn't a different way or that it could never be a different way. Our understanding thought science does not show that something else is neccesarily wrong.
I make no such demands or claims, discussing things isn't the same as demanding things.
Hmm..
"i'm expressing my personal opinion and exercising my right to freedom of speech. And yes, that includes the right to say blasphemous things (eat that Ireland!). Why are you trying to suppress my freedom of speech? (See what i did there?)"
Who are you expressing your opinion to? If it's people who don't believe as you, then you are making demands and claims. OR maybe I should ask why are you expression your opinions to people who do not believe as you if you are not attempting to ge
All very nice and all, but in the end, this is just semantics. Like i said earlier, i differentiate between science, as a methodology, and scientists. I do not conflate both. All the things you are focusing on are failures by the scientists, not science. It might be a silly distinction for you, but for me it makes all the difference.
I guess the point was more to most people aren't capable of doing that. They posses no skills or knowledge or access to either and have to take someone's word for it then they present it. You might be one of the special ones, but you are more the exception then the rule.
No, i don't ignore claims or reject them. I however, do ignore topics that are of no interest to me. For me, the most exciting thing that can happen is that some discovery throws my understanding of a topic into disarray, i love learning new stuff. As for people claiming that what they're doing is science, well, claiming so doesn't make it true. I can claim to be a Martian, that won't turn me into one nether.
Ok, again, you are the exception more then the rule. as I pointed out, here on slashdot, shooting the messenger instead of the message seems to be the preferred way of dealing with anything that doesn't fit their ideals or agenda.
It's not science that is threatened by the god of gaps, but the god of gaps that is threatened by science. And yes, scientists have been threatened by religious people in the past, in the present and probably in the future. Like i said, i don't care if you believe or not, i have my opinion about it, and i'll voice it from time to time, but i'd never try & take away your right to believe.
I guess what I'm am confused about is why science speaks about religion, more specifically, a being that doesn't even fall within the real of science at all. And why people attempt to make claims and connections about science and that being.
I disagree with the threatened portion though. It's only threatening when someone says X is true therefore Y is false. Science doesn't really say that about religion in the rare aspects they directly cross, it says X is true, therefore it's more probable then Y.
If you are raised to think something is true without examining the evidence (or the absence of evidence), and you base your world view on that, then yes, you really should know the answers (or lack there-of). In the end however, it's your life, and you can spend it how you like, as long as you don't encroach on my own rights. It's just my personal opinion that it's stupid.
But it's still meaningless for 99% of the people out there. Religion and science only conflict in less then.000001% of the combined fields. The chances of people becoming involved in those conflicting portion within their jobs, daily life, or anything in particular that they need to make decisions based around is surprisingly low.
Rights are a separate beast of nature altogether. Rights are either things bestowed on people by virtue of society at large or some creator that is larger then government. If the majority of society thinks that we have the right to kick a dog, then that will be our right. When government encroaches on that by creating a law making it illegal, they have taken a right away from us.
Now that brings us to an interesting situation, if you don't believe in a creator or anything like that, then your rights are bestowed by society. When society changes, so might those rights. I'm not going to say I agree with it, but your compass would have technically shifted directions.
Of course there might be an option that your rights come from somewhere else. If that's the case, I sure would be interested to know about the concept.
I'm not trying to make them live the way 'i want it', i'm expressing my personal opinion and exercising my right to
Science, the discipline or method is unbiased. The scientists however, are not. If someone tells me that science is biased or something, for me, that implies it's the method they are discussing. The distinction for me is as clear as night & day. No True Scotsman does not apply.
That's a nice separation and all, but seriously, science wouldn't exist if people were not involved to practice it. Furthermore, science doesn't report itself. People spread the word of the findings. I seriously do not think you can separate science from the people practicing it. You may be able to separate bad science from good science, but the elimination of people simply can't be done.
We must have different perception then, because frankly, even the suggestion that i'd restrict myself to press releases to get my science news sounds ludicrous to me. If i encounter a press release that tickles my fancy, i will go & read the papers and investigate. If it something that hardly or doesn't interest me, i'm inclined to accept the press release as is, but i will not base my world view (or even an opinion) based on that. Now, if you mean something else completely, you might want to rephrase that;)
It's interesting. I was speaking about science in general and how it's presented to the public, and you are concentrating on yourself specifically. Anyways, have you ever found yourself ignoring claims because they didn't match what you thought was right? Have you ignored claimed or rejected them simply because the source is connected to Big Oil or some industry pundit or somehow has something to gain from the claim? Even if you haven't, there are tons of people who do. Just pay attention on slashdot where the easiest way to win the argument seems to be attacking the messenger and not the message. And yes, they will claim it's science too.
Frankly, if someone believes or not, i couldn't care less. The problem is, they care that others believe differently or not at all. The god you just described is the god of gaps, that's the one who's being threatened by science.
lol.. I don't see how it's threatening science at all? Religion generally doesn't care about science. Science generally doesn't care about religion. But each is used to make claims about the other for some reason.
They are content with the answers because they are either not properly educated or have been brainwashed since childhood to reject observable reality.
When will they ever need to know the answers? You see, this is what I don't understand.. Who cares what they think or believe in. It's their life, not yours. So why are you trying to make them live the way you want? All it does is cause them to want to make you believe like they do. Ignore the idiots and get on with it.
You just mixed abiogenesis with evolution and skipped over the generational divide. Evolution theory doesn't describe how life came to be, only how life evolves. We can not observe it on a macro level directly due to the massive amount of time required to do so, but we have indirect observations about said evolution, genetics being a key element in that.
Your right.. I did mix abiogeneses in there. I did it for a reason though, because taking an existing cell and causing it to mutate into something else entirely though all natural processes is a bit unrealistic to expect. Perhaps it wasn't, but I didn't want to limit such little a statement artificially.
As for indirect observations about said evolution, genetics being a key element in that. Yes, but keep in mind that it's interpreted. What I mean is, it's how we attempt to figure out what we know and see. that is subject to much error. What we think we know could be completely wrong.. At least with science, we have that ability- to correct ourselves.
You are conflating scientific method with human fallibility. Two different things.
No, I am saying they are combined indistinguishably within science and with those claiming to be doing science. It's like the unbiased reporter only reporting the facts that support their positions- it isn't a slant in the wording, but it's a slant none the less.
The scientific method is only going to be as good as those practicing it. When it's pointed out that something is lacking, or wrong, or doesn't make sense, and the human fallibility takes over, you cannot tell the difference from an outside perspective in the modern climate.
In short, it's really where our perception of science has gone to. We can start throwing a no true Scotsman argument about then cherry pick what information we find useful else we end up being the same Scotsman.
These parts are irrelevant, the part i refer to as folk lore & fairy tales are the parts that deal with god, the devil and the whole load of other unverifiable and unfounded bs in that book. Look, it's not because parts of a story are based (however loosely) on truth that all is based on truth. Take the Koran for instance, it also contains things based loosely on truth, and so do other religious texts, that doesn't mean it is all true (in fact, it's impossible that they are all true since they contradict each other). And since the truth is unverifiable, like all fairy tales the only reasonable & logical position is to regard such claims as such.
It's not irrelevant. The entire concept of an all powerful omnipotent being forcing it's will onto people and the planet is directly based around the concept of not being able to understand or comprehend the the underlying principles behind some happenings. People who believe in a god in today's times, are simply people who are content with the answers.
It's not about being true as much as it's about being true enough that they are content with the answers. If it was about verifiability, then a lot of scientific theory can be claimed to be false crap at the same time. For instance, I already referenced the fact that you cannot evolve molecules into a cell and then into a mammal to verify current evolutionary theory. But we can take observations and draw conclusions based on them with somewhat of an acceptable degree of confidence. It's really no different other then some people are content in a magical being willing something into our existence while others are more pressed about how that was accomplished.
The mechanisms for belief are stunningly the same here. The mechanisms for accepting one or the other or rejecting it altogether are too. That was the point, not that any one person is right or wrong, true or false. And focusing on the true or false is bringing it even closer to the same thing. Especially with science when true doesn't mean always true or even was true.
This is what i refer to as 'moving the goalpost'. You were talking about 'biological evolutionary theory', which is observable. By not making specific claims i do not need to resort to specific rebuttals.
No goal posts needed here. You see, 'biological evolutionary theory' does contain aspects that are assumptions based on observations. They are not directly observable in the least. Furthermore, when we claim they are observable, it's a matter of semantics more then reality. Take the discussions on breeds of dogs for instance. If no dog existed today and we were going to take nothing but archeological evidence, we would consider them many different species. But because we know better, we consider them breeds of the same species.
It might not be observable in your lifespan, or mine, but the discovery of genetics have proven this as a scientific fact.
Scientific fact: an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true (a
Congratulations, you just described the fact that people are lazy. Most people strike me as unwilling to gather knowledge, a sad observation:(Sad indeed, but a reality in which we live.
The difference is, science is actively looking to falsify models, it is constantly challenging current models, religion does not do this.
Well, that's the claim. However, it seems completely different in real life. Take the CRU emails for instance. They vigorously defended their position to the exclusion of others based on "it's not what they wanted to see". How about I rephrase that to make a little better sense. For science to work, the concept is actively looking to falsify models, it is constantly challenging current models, whether it gets done or not.
Maybe it's because English isn't my native tongue, but for me, folk lore are fairy tales.
Most tales are the result of things observed. The boogerman was developed to stop young kids from wondering off in the night where animals would think they were food. Not eating shell fish because God would punish you was developed at a time when refrigeration wasn't around and it was actually dangerous to eat shellfish. Isolating women on their period or after childbirth and making sure things were cleansed properly that they came into contact was because you guessed, it, it could cause people to get sick and die.
A scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation, so yes, i can accept that statement, because i can actually validate it myself.
Really, You have done this in the past? I mean grab a single cell organism and evolve it into a mammal of some existing species or new species altogether? No, parts of it is "verifiable observation" that leads us to strongly believe the rest is true too. It's not however a proven fact from point A to point B. Even the claims of Speciation (species evolving into distinctly different species) is largely a excursive in schematics coached with a little redefining of terms that seem to fail basic tests of existing taxonomies when extrapolated outside the confined example.
God is irelevant to science, since science only concerns itself with the natural, a god is supernatural. There is, however, no reason to assume there is a god, there are no observations that indicate there is one, there is no way to test for one, and we can't even define what a god is.
Good.. You found the idiocy in the statement. I was getting scared a bit there.
Or they have no clue what science is.
Possibly.. but lets not evolve this into a no true Scotsman war.
Or plain stupidity, something that's even more annoying then blasphemy.
Stupidity, given time, will show itself as obvious. The treatment is as I described,. This is mostly because Science has become political in recent years, and with politics, you have to deal with ideology which is indistinguishable from religion. In fact, they are the same for the most extent.
Assuming that an unprovable unobservable unneeded entity is required to explain the provable & observable reality is illogical.
No one said it was needed. The point was to why it exists in the first place. "Can be true" is still true when it's "not likely to be true". To say it is true is no more a lie or mental failing when you read it in some book, verses misinterpreting empirical evidence presented to you. and for the most part, people are reading everything in a book or being told by someone somewhere claiming some inherent authroity on the subject. That's a common denominator in both science and religion as most people lack any ability to verify anything for themselves or present convincing evidence that they have.
Your right, those Emachines are vicious.. I gave up working on them when one kicked my dog, crashed my pickup truck, and ran off with my sister's netbook. I was lucky to escape with my IPOD alive.
Might be better served to pick up your phone, pretend to be calling someone, then after a few quicky improvised sentences say, "but doc, are you sure it's contagious? I'm on a train with lots of people around me, can't you hear that ass talking so loud right next to me?" Am I going to die? Should I want them?
I bet that not only does the loud talking guy get quiet, he won't bother doing anything about you calling him a loudmouth asshole either.
Wait what? I have no clue what this is supposed to mean.
What I'm saying is that it's all the same process. Eventually, people become content with what they are told and leave it at that. Even if it's wrong and they do not care to challenge it themselves. In the end, both seem to think something is a fact until something shows them that they were/are wrong. Or in other words, it's the same mental process dealing the different conclusions and beliefs.
What he means is that it is better to be wrong and correct your error then to have a 'faith' based on nothing but folktales and tradition. Science isn't static, what we know today can be changed by what we learn tomorrow.
Ok. but why is that? Folk lore and tradition has established things mostly through a scientific process. People observed things, took actions to correct it or lessen it's impact, and then created folk lore about it with real world results.
BTW, there are only small parts of the bible and most religions that actually comes into conflict with science and those parts are largely interpretation too. For instance, the age of the earth, and evolution, both pertain to so small and minor parts of each, it's actually trivial to a complete outsider.
As for religion, how people can still hold on to that in these days is beyond my comprehension, I've tried discussing it with religious people, but they all seem unable to grasp logic the moment it conflicts with their faith.
I'm willing to be that the logic you seem so keen on isn't quite as logical as you think it is. For instance, even here on slashdot, I see people claim that biological evolutionary theory is a proven fact. Can you believe that crap? I've seem people here on slashdot claim that Science proves a god doesn't exist. Can you believe that crap? Of course these people are completely confused. They are putting what they want to believe above the science and still calling it science. Then there are the holier then though crowed who claim there is no god, all religion sucks donkey balls, and if you say anything bad about science, it's blasphemy.
Here is the real problem. When someone says god did something, 99% of the time, they are not saying it couldn't happen naturally. In fact, if it could happen naturally, then it's probably because that god mad it possible when it did something. But what they are really saying is that they are content with knowing only that a god did it. You might not be. If you are both wrong, you are both wrong because of the same thought mechanics and processes. There is less then 1% of either that seems to be insurmountable.
I don't know about twice the sentence, but yes,. the entire concept of monitored release and house arrest is that they can reasonably know where you are. If that fails, then returning to incarceration is the next logical step. It most likely will not be one of those, "well, it didn't work, we will just forget he's out there" things like the GP suggested at all.
Are you saying that "a god did it" leaves no room to figure out how A god did it or how it could have happened naturally?
Science and religion have a lot in common in that they both attempt to explain the world (universe) and our place in it. The difference is that science can at least admit that it could be wrong. Falsifiability and all that.
It seem that you can't though. You see, God did it doesn't necessarily mean there wasn't a natural mechanism for getting it done. In fact, one could infer that because anyone can find a natural mechanism. it might be because a god put it there. We have very little empirical evidence (if any) to why most natural mechanisms exist at all, only that they do or might exist.
So what you are missing is that even if a God did it, it doesn't mean he didn't do it the way you observe and theorize about, it just means that some people are content knowing a god did it and don't care much more then that. And they don't generally object or disagree with the continued explanations until the point where someone attempts to claim their god didn't do something or whatever because of that.
So being potentially wrong because of ignorance is worse then being wrong because of ignorance because you know for a fact (that happens to be wrong)?
I don't understand what you are trying to say here. Is it that people who do not take the same journey of worship as you do are simply not worthy of an opinion?
Am I the only one who knows WP7 as word perfect 7?
I mean does any bother checking the ambiguity of phrases they try to create when shortening an actual name into initials to sound cool? Especially in this case where Word Perfect was a competitor to MS's office.
It used to be that people would cut words from magazines and other papers to make ransom notes so no one could recognize their hand writing.
With this concept moving to the computer and internet, it will be trivial to find words, phrases, auto generation scripts and so on to do the digital equivalent. In fact, I think there are several programs out there that will pull random lines of text from several sources on the internet, take a real message and create a image of some sort to lay information over top of it, all just to get around spam filters. (disable the display of image in your email and you will be surprised at what is underneath them sometimes).
But something I can see this really having a problem with is how easy it might make the chance at setting someone else up to take a fall. Suppose you and I have emailed each other for quite some time now. I saved all our correspondence and farmed them to find phrases and word misspellings, cut and pasted them to make statements you never intended to make, then sent them off to threaten the president. Something even more disturbing, suppose we know each other in real life and I have the hots for your wife. I make my way into your house, plant some pipes and fertilizer beside some diesel fuel in one of your closets, get on your computer, sign up for a free email address from it using fake information and start spamming chat rooms and emailing government officials your intent to kill the president.
Well, not really. You see, the joke is on them. The 72 virgins are perpetual virgins- they can't be screwed. Instead of them going to a paradise, they are actually living in a hell with 72 annoying as fuck little sisters.
That's right. Women have a right to use abortion as a viable means of birth control. They should be able to kill the baby inside them all the way up until it starts to come out unless it can be removed and still live, then they should still have the right to remove it and dump it into someone else' lap. Women should not ever be told what to do with their bodies by the government.
And on the same note, The government should not be telling you what kind of insurance you should have to have, what treatments they will cover, create some panel that decides who gets the treatments and who doesn't. Government should not be Banning foods like trans-fats because they are bad for you or anything of the sort.
I'm sorry.. but what ever happened to personal responsibility in your world? I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm confused to why it's every one else' duty.
They will probably use the software to sell to their customers while they ignore it in their own purchasing. It's a win-win for them. What could go wrong? The government gives them another check?
Why do you expect that guy to answer something in which he never said or that you seem to not understand at all?
Seriously, if a woman is old enough to have kids and has no fucking clue how they are made, the state should force an abortion on them as society and the human species will all benefit evolving without their genes near the gene pool.
Abstinence education does_not leave anyone confused to how babies are made. Abstinence education does_not leave anyone confused to how STDs are transmitted or how you can get one.
Even if you do not think it's a proper education, you cannot claim the parent's statement "Face it women know the dangers of having sex before engaging" is remotely incorrect.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, that depends on who is doing the saying.
for instance, I am pretty sure not only from the wording, but the fact that you posted AC that the accusations you made are illustrative of what you see as a problem and not a direct accusation of the person names being any one or part of those things.
However, had you been claiming to be, and identified as such, Eddie Talbot's closest friend and ally, or perhaps someone with something to gain over making those statements, they could be much more believable as being real. This is part of the problem with libel. It's not just what was said, but the context of what was said and by whom. On election day, saying that someone was arrested at a polling booth implies more then just that. It implies there was a reason why and you should get out and vote against them.
What would be nice is if the truth would be an affirmative defense to libel. But people can craft statements that are technically accurate, but not representative of the truth. For instance, I could probably say you had sex with a 14 or 16 year old and it would be true. I'm assuming you might have had a sexual encounter in high school. But if you are 48 years old when I make that statement without reference to it happening when you were 14 or 16 too, the reality of the situation becomes all distorted and way more negative then the complete truth would imply.
The government doesn't get involved with parents and children for taking medication or drinking. There had to have been some underlying cause for the entire drinking or medication to even be relevant in the first place.
In this case, it was a custody case in which one parent was saying I'm a better environment/person/provider/whatever then she is. This is the only reason why drinking or mental medication was even relevant.
All other things being equal, would someone not taking their prescription medication or boozing it up be a better or worse or equal environment for a child. You see, this is literally about the best and worst case arrangement for the kid(s) when compared between two distinct scenarios. The only reason why it's about drinking or medication is because someone is specifically saying it's not as good as over here.
It was.. The court order was challenged on the grounds that it would violate the first amendment (free speech) rights of the people the information was sought after. The court said in the challenge, that the first amendment actions of the people in question have already been made public.
This order from the court wasn't an order saying "you have to give anything the government wants to them". It was saying you have to comply with an earlier warrant.
Good point. People consider their phone numbers to be private yet they are published in a directory that most government agencies can access easily.
Actually,no. This is the exact reason why a court is involved in the first place.
The government only has a limited right to private information. In order to secure that right, they need to get the court to agree they have a need that overcomes your rights to keep that information private. The court absolutely should be giving the information out if the conditions accorded to by law have been met to it's satisfaction.
The issue isn't whether it's private or not in the literal sense. Many pieces of very private information are made public every day, but that doesn't make them any less private. The issue is really whether or not there is an expectation of it remaining private and/or if a need to gain access to that information outweighs certain expectations. The court didn't say twitter had to give the information to anyone asking, it said it had to give it to specific people asking who were citing a specific reason.
So yes, it can be private and not private at the same time. I'm betting your parents and other members of your family know private things about you. They can blab that to others without it ever being no private. For instance, My last medical physical asked questions about people in my family that had certain illnesses or diseases. Blanket exceptions do not bode well when we are dealing with specific information.
I agree. Which is why I was confused to why people claim science disproved or refutes a religion or god.
I agree here too.
Well, correct, but I guess the religion aspect is a motivational compass with society so it's more of the reason to why they bestow the rights then where the rights come from. I probably could have worded that better.
You see, here is the funny thing. The age of the earth and everything about evolution, is just a way we understand things in order to use them to our benefit. Because we understand them this way doesn't mean they are right and any religion or god is wrong as it could very well be that both are right with the difference that science requires the possibility of being wrong. The moon landing, I see as a different set of situations as it can actually be tested to some degree. But as for the age of the earth, if it naturally occurred, the scientific understanding is most likely accurate. Well, as accurate as our collection of knowledge will allow. But this doesn't rule out any religious beliefs, it just creates a tool that we can exploit to our advantage.
So the existence of that knowledge and the use of it does not mean the religion is wrong (unless you are going to make a religious argument to why the religion is wrong).
I think before I muddle the message any further, I should be very specific with it. Science is a tool for understanding, using, and taking advantage of nature around us. Religion can give us depth and meaning to questions of life and purpose and is mostly philosophical- even when it makes statements about something science has determined to be different. Just because we understand something to be a certain way in science does not mean it wasn't a different way or that it could never be a different way. Our understanding thought science does not show that something else is neccesarily wrong.
Hmm..
Who are you expressing your opinion to? If it's people who don't believe as you, then you are making demands and claims. OR maybe I should ask why are you expression your opinions to people who do not believe as you if you are not attempting to ge
I guess the point was more to most people aren't capable of doing that. They posses no skills or knowledge or access to either and have to take someone's word for it then they present it. You might be one of the special ones, but you are more the exception then the rule.
Ok, again, you are the exception more then the rule. as I pointed out, here on slashdot, shooting the messenger instead of the message seems to be the preferred way of dealing with anything that doesn't fit their ideals or agenda.
I guess what I'm am confused about is why science speaks about religion, more specifically, a being that doesn't even fall within the real of science at all. And why people attempt to make claims and connections about science and that being.
I disagree with the threatened portion though. It's only threatening when someone says X is true therefore Y is false. Science doesn't really say that about religion in the rare aspects they directly cross, it says X is true, therefore it's more probable then Y.
But it's still meaningless for 99% of the people out there. Religion and science only conflict in less then .000001% of the combined fields. The chances of people becoming involved in those conflicting portion within their jobs, daily life, or anything in particular that they need to make decisions based around is surprisingly low.
Rights are a separate beast of nature altogether. Rights are either things bestowed on people by virtue of society at large or some creator that is larger then government. If the majority of society thinks that we have the right to kick a dog, then that will be our right. When government encroaches on that by creating a law making it illegal, they have taken a right away from us.
Now that brings us to an interesting situation, if you don't believe in a creator or anything like that, then your rights are bestowed by society. When society changes, so might those rights. I'm not going to say I agree with it, but your compass would have technically shifted directions.
Of course there might be an option that your rights come from somewhere else. If that's the case, I sure would be interested to know about the concept.
That's a nice separation and all, but seriously, science wouldn't exist if people were not involved to practice it. Furthermore, science doesn't report itself. People spread the word of the findings. I seriously do not think you can separate science from the people practicing it. You may be able to separate bad science from good science, but the elimination of people simply can't be done.
It's interesting. I was speaking about science in general and how it's presented to the public, and you are concentrating on yourself specifically. Anyways, have you ever found yourself ignoring claims because they didn't match what you thought was right? Have you ignored claimed or rejected them simply because the source is connected to Big Oil or some industry pundit or somehow has something to gain from the claim? Even if you haven't, there are tons of people who do. Just pay attention on slashdot where the easiest way to win the argument seems to be attacking the messenger and not the message. And yes, they will claim it's science too.
lol.. I don't see how it's threatening science at all? Religion generally doesn't care about science. Science generally doesn't care about religion. But each is used to make claims about the other for some reason.
When will they ever need to know the answers? You see, this is what I don't understand.. Who cares what they think or believe in. It's their life, not yours. So why are you trying to make them live the way you want? All it does is cause them to want to make you believe like they do. Ignore the idiots and get on with it.
Your right.. I did mix abiogeneses in there. I did it for a reason though, because taking an existing cell and causing it to mutate into something else entirely though all natural processes is a bit unrealistic to expect. Perhaps it wasn't, but I didn't want to limit such little a statement artificially.
As for indirect observations about said evolution, genetics being a key element in that. Yes, but keep in mind that it's interpreted. What I mean is, it's how we attempt to figure out what we know and see. that is subject to much error. What we think we know could be completely wrong.. At least with science, we have that ability- to correct ourselves.
No, I am saying they are combined indistinguishably within science and with those claiming to be doing science. It's like the unbiased reporter only reporting the facts that support their positions- it isn't a slant in the wording, but it's a slant none the less.
The scientific method is only going to be as good as those practicing it. When it's pointed out that something is lacking, or wrong, or doesn't make sense, and the human fallibility takes over, you cannot tell the difference from an outside perspective in the modern climate.
In short, it's really where our perception of science has gone to. We can start throwing a no true Scotsman argument about then cherry pick what information we find useful else we end up being the same Scotsman.
It's not irrelevant. The entire concept of an all powerful omnipotent being forcing it's will onto people and the planet is directly based around the concept of not being able to understand or comprehend the the underlying principles behind some happenings. People who believe in a god in today's times, are simply people who are content with the answers.
It's not about being true as much as it's about being true enough that they are content with the answers. If it was about verifiability, then a lot of scientific theory can be claimed to be false crap at the same time. For instance, I already referenced the fact that you cannot evolve molecules into a cell and then into a mammal to verify current evolutionary theory. But we can take observations and draw conclusions based on them with somewhat of an acceptable degree of confidence. It's really no different other then some people are content in a magical being willing something into our existence while others are more pressed about how that was accomplished.
The mechanisms for belief are stunningly the same here. The mechanisms for accepting one or the other or rejecting it altogether are too. That was the point, not that any one person is right or wrong, true or false. And focusing on the true or false is bringing it even closer to the same thing. Especially with science when true doesn't mean always true or even was true.
No goal posts needed here. You see, 'biological evolutionary theory' does contain aspects that are assumptions based on observations. They are not directly observable in the least. Furthermore, when we claim they are observable, it's a matter of semantics more then reality. Take the discussions on breeds of dogs for instance. If no dog existed today and we were going to take nothing but archeological evidence, we would consider them many different species. But because we know better, we consider them breeds of the same species.
Scientific fact: an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true (a
How did you know?
Your right, those Emachines are vicious.. I gave up working on them when one kicked my dog, crashed my pickup truck, and ran off with my sister's netbook. I was lucky to escape with my IPOD alive.
Might be better served to pick up your phone, pretend to be calling someone, then after a few quicky improvised sentences say, "but doc, are you sure it's contagious? I'm on a train with lots of people around me, can't you hear that ass talking so loud right next to me?" Am I going to die? Should I want them?
I bet that not only does the loud talking guy get quiet, he won't bother doing anything about you calling him a loudmouth asshole either.
What I'm saying is that it's all the same process. Eventually, people become content with what they are told and leave it at that. Even if it's wrong and they do not care to challenge it themselves. In the end, both seem to think something is a fact until something shows them that they were/are wrong. Or in other words, it's the same mental process dealing the different conclusions and beliefs.
Ok. but why is that? Folk lore and tradition has established things mostly through a scientific process. People observed things, took actions to correct it or lessen it's impact, and then created folk lore about it with real world results.
BTW, there are only small parts of the bible and most religions that actually comes into conflict with science and those parts are largely interpretation too. For instance, the age of the earth, and evolution, both pertain to so small and minor parts of each, it's actually trivial to a complete outsider.
I'm willing to be that the logic you seem so keen on isn't quite as logical as you think it is. For instance, even here on slashdot, I see people claim that biological evolutionary theory is a proven fact. Can you believe that crap? I've seem people here on slashdot claim that Science proves a god doesn't exist. Can you believe that crap? Of course these people are completely confused. They are putting what they want to believe above the science and still calling it science. Then there are the holier then though crowed who claim there is no god, all religion sucks donkey balls, and if you say anything bad about science, it's blasphemy.
Here is the real problem. When someone says god did something, 99% of the time, they are not saying it couldn't happen naturally. In fact, if it could happen naturally, then it's probably because that god mad it possible when it did something. But what they are really saying is that they are content with knowing only that a god did it. You might not be. If you are both wrong, you are both wrong because of the same thought mechanics and processes. There is less then 1% of either that seems to be insurmountable.
I don't know about twice the sentence, but yes,. the entire concept of monitored release and house arrest is that they can reasonably know where you are. If that fails, then returning to incarceration is the next logical step. It most likely will not be one of those, "well, it didn't work, we will just forget he's out there" things like the GP suggested at all.
Are you saying that "a god did it" leaves no room to figure out how A god did it or how it could have happened naturally?
It seem that you can't though. You see, God did it doesn't necessarily mean there wasn't a natural mechanism for getting it done. In fact, one could infer that because anyone can find a natural mechanism. it might be because a god put it there. We have very little empirical evidence (if any) to why most natural mechanisms exist at all, only that they do or might exist.
So what you are missing is that even if a God did it, it doesn't mean he didn't do it the way you observe and theorize about, it just means that some people are content knowing a god did it and don't care much more then that. And they don't generally object or disagree with the continued explanations until the point where someone attempts to claim their god didn't do something or whatever because of that.
So being potentially wrong because of ignorance is worse then being wrong because of ignorance because you know for a fact (that happens to be wrong)?
I don't understand what you are trying to say here. Is it that people who do not take the same journey of worship as you do are simply not worthy of an opinion?
Am I the only one who knows WP7 as word perfect 7?
I mean does any bother checking the ambiguity of phrases they try to create when shortening an actual name into initials to sound cool? Especially in this case where Word Perfect was a competitor to MS's office.
It used to be that people would cut words from magazines and other papers to make ransom notes so no one could recognize their hand writing.
With this concept moving to the computer and internet, it will be trivial to find words, phrases, auto generation scripts and so on to do the digital equivalent. In fact, I think there are several programs out there that will pull random lines of text from several sources on the internet, take a real message and create a image of some sort to lay information over top of it, all just to get around spam filters. (disable the display of image in your email and you will be surprised at what is underneath them sometimes).
But something I can see this really having a problem with is how easy it might make the chance at setting someone else up to take a fall. Suppose you and I have emailed each other for quite some time now. I saved all our correspondence and farmed them to find phrases and word misspellings, cut and pasted them to make statements you never intended to make, then sent them off to threaten the president. Something even more disturbing, suppose we know each other in real life and I have the hots for your wife. I make my way into your house, plant some pipes and fertilizer beside some diesel fuel in one of your closets, get on your computer, sign up for a free email address from it using fake information and start spamming chat rooms and emailing government officials your intent to kill the president.
Well, not really. You see, the joke is on them. The 72 virgins are perpetual virgins- they can't be screwed. Instead of them going to a paradise, they are actually living in a hell with 72 annoying as fuck little sisters.
Isn't that just special. Someone didn't like my attempt at calling it like it is being stated while pointing out the obvious conflicts.
Perhaps I worded something wrong?
That's right. Women have a right to use abortion as a viable means of birth control. They should be able to kill the baby inside them all the way up until it starts to come out unless it can be removed and still live, then they should still have the right to remove it and dump it into someone else' lap. Women should not ever be told what to do with their bodies by the government.
And on the same note, The government should not be telling you what kind of insurance you should have to have, what treatments they will cover, create some panel that decides who gets the treatments and who doesn't. Government should not be Banning foods like trans-fats because they are bad for you or anything of the sort.
I'm sorry.. but what ever happened to personal responsibility in your world? I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm confused to why it's every one else' duty.
They will probably use the software to sell to their customers while they ignore it in their own purchasing. It's a win-win for them. What could go wrong? The government gives them another check?
Why do you expect that guy to answer something in which he never said or that you seem to not understand at all?
Seriously, if a woman is old enough to have kids and has no fucking clue how they are made, the state should force an abortion on them as society and the human species will all benefit evolving without their genes near the gene pool.
Abstinence education does_not leave anyone confused to how babies are made. Abstinence education does_not leave anyone confused to how STDs are transmitted or how you can get one.
Even if you do not think it's a proper education, you cannot claim the parent's statement "Face it women know the dangers of having sex before engaging" is remotely incorrect.
Nah.. that's the step just before all the profit is realized.