His concept is interesting though. It's not really promoting the progress of anything if it's been pulled out of public view and kept hidden away in some box as some sort of asset or something.
Perhaps there should be a time limit or a test to which something can be shown where the goal of to promote the progress of science and useful arts is being achieve else a copyright limits fall short or something.
I hate it when people attempt to miss the obvious here and apply some inane ideology.
Copyright law states you need a license to use the code. The gpl states you need to agree to these terms and follow these procedures if applicable to "your use as copyright law is concerned" and in exchange, you will have a license for as long as you are in compliance.
the entire ideology line is right in that copyright is the key to enforcement of the contract, but the GPL is an exchange of something of value defined by law for behavior. It's a contract for a license.
I know he did.. He also knew it wasn't constitutional as he mentioned in his speech concerning the repeal of prohibition.
"As a matter of fact and law, the governing rights of the States are all of those which have not been surrendered to the National Government by the Constitution or its amendments. Wisely or unwisely, people know that under the Eighteenth Amendment Congress has been given the right to legislate on this particular subject1, but this is not the case in the matter of a great number of other vital problems of government, such as the conduct of public utilities, of banks, of insurance, of business, of agriculture, of education, of social welfare and of a dozen other important features. In these, Washington must not be encouraged to interfere." - Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 1930
This was printed in it's entirety in the New York Times, March 3, 1930- two years before he became president.
This implementation by FDR can be seen as how close the communist party actually got in their attempts. They were able to pick up a lot of support from disenfranchised citizens going into and coming out of the great depression. They also, when forced to go underground, infiltrated the socialist movements and other liberal (of the time) creations.
You see, we are talking two distinctly different concepts here. One is in relation to news, and the other is in relation to the impact the information would have. an example of this is you calling your old lady fat behind her back in a meaningless joke. It's hardly news worthy but if she found out, you would be in the dog house.
but lets go somewhere that isn't that glaringly obvious. 42 23 36. is that news worthy? I don't think so, is it important and damaging if it got out? Well, 25 years ago, it would be because it was the combination to my school locker.
You see, it's hardly damaging or meaningful in the sense that anyone is doing anything wrong. However, given to the wrong people, it can be very detrimental to have it out there. So why don't you stop acting like you are 3 and can't think about these things.
What there is was competition between participants in the press. They worked to scoop their competition and gain market share. It was a constant battle between them and being the first to get the dirt that everyone cared about (their government) meant sales. When all the papers and magazines started becoming conglomerations and getting their news from news service agencies, they only need a presence in an area.
The internet is sort of the same way now. The blogs were the people saying look at me, come to me, then when everyone had a blog and started pulling all their information from other people's blogs, we end up with a bunch of opinions about something already known.
But you could hardly call wikileaks a watchdog journalism. I would probably be hard pressed to even call it journalism at all. You see, there is not story behind the information. There is nothing completing it like you would get with great journalism. There's very little who what when, there is no why or how, and in the end, all you have is a piece of information that isn't anything major for the most part, even if all that was there.
As for the swayed by logic, perhaps I didn't get my point across after 2 posts. A lot of the information is in no way news worthy at all. It's just the discrete and confidential communications between some unprofessional people playing the role of diplomat or soldier. and while there is no bearing on anything illegal in those, there are elements that can be used to harm the US and the interests of the US. I mean seriously, is it illegal for a country to ask us to go to war with another over their nuclear weapons programs? Even if we decided against it?
The question was "Why is this glaringly obvious solution NEVER discussed?" and that answer is, because the largest portion of the leaks had nothing at all to do with *DO ILLEGAL SHIT* or *NOT SUBVERT ITS OWN IDEALS OF FREEDOM AND EQUALITY*. They could however, be in turned used against the US or it's allies in it's perfectly legitimate dealings around the world and at home. They could be used to defeat our efforts in wars that we are currently fighting. When you have 99% of the leaks overshadowing the less then 1% that pointed to something underhanded or illegal, even if you stretch those to include opinions on instances where it's not clear, you end up with people focusing on the nothing to see here leaks that can be used against us.
In other words, the glaringly obvious thing for most people is to stop the leaks. So a reporter got shot in a mistaken incident and they kept it quiet, now that it's in the open, it changes nothing. He's no less dead, to anyone familiar with combat, the copter crew, while not in the right, definitely did nothing criminal because they didn't know they were wrong until after the fact. So it out, we know about it now, nothing's different, except for all the other crap is out too. And that seems to be taking center stage.
Your right, Hitler was against communism. The problem is with the Spartacists movement and the communism underpinnings. It breathed the socialist party in which Hitler was able to gain power in by claiming communism was a jewish ploy to destroy Germany. There is technically little difference between communism and socialism except how it's administrated in practice.
As for your comment on Mussolini, you are getting your cart before your horse. The popular term totalitarian fascism really didn't exist as we know it until the mid 1920's. This is largely because Mussolini ended up defining it by his own actions. Anyways, the communist revolution in America was happening about the same time Mussolini was coming to power. Remember, in 1919, he formed the Milan fascio that advocated universal suffrage, the abolition of the Senate, land for the peasants, improvement of workers' conditions and a strong foreign policy. The perception of Mussolini at the time was no where near the eventual reality. The people didn't voluntarily elect a brutal dictator- they elected someone who turned into one.
Yea, because all 20 some thousand leaked documents all pertained to the US government trying to keep what most people who have actually saw the unedited version of the video thinks was simply an unfortunate friendly fire type incident based around the mis-identification of a threat in a war zone. I mean nothing was pertaining to not liking the way another country was doing something or anything like that. None of them were about citizens helping soldiers in the field by telling them where an IED was placed or where the bad guys always come from before the fights.
Yea, you're fucking right, what the hell was I thinking. You know, I actually believed the 10 or so thousand so called leaked documents that had absolutely nothing to do with that whatsoever at all were real and just candid communications between people who work in the government. Thanks for pointing out the fact that they all had to do with a helicopter crew shooting an armed escorted reporter in the middle of a war zone while carrying something that looked like a weapon from a distance. What in the hell would this world become if we would have focused on the 20 some thousand fake fucking documents and forgot about the one thing you are still railing about.
So then your approach would be to simply sit back and watch the enemey get stronger and stronger until they decide to overtake you?
I mean seriously, the entire communism equals bad things didn't start with world war two. It started when the communist party USA attempted to overthrow the US government and install a Mussolini type dictator between WWI and WWII. Then after WWII, the communists parties around the world folded in with the socialists parties because of the negative association with Hitler and that's why they are technically different but treated as the same by many in politics. To add to this, Russia who was upset about not being able to keep ground it fought to free from the Germans and Italians started just rolling into countries already decimated and taking them over. and they were operating under the same guise of communism.
So in the end, in less then one century, communism had been behind an attempted overthrow of the US government, it was the vehicle that allowed Hitler to gain power and do what he did, it allowed Russia to become the USSR, and when they are fighting the people of a country to force them into the system too, all they are doing is getting stronger and stronger until one day they become a serious threat to you again.
If you think ignoring your enemies while they get stronger is logical, prudent, noble or anything other then stupid, then I guess I should point to Europe and you can pick about any era in which there was war and see how that worked out.
Because a lot of the leaks had nothing to do with *DO ILLEGAL SHIT* or *NOT SUBVERT ITS OWN IDEALS OF FREEDOM AND EQUALITY*. But their releases can be detrimental to the country in any number of ways.
You seems to be placing some confirmation bias in your analysis.
You see, the number of times a gun was fired is not the number of times was used in a self defense. I know of people who have simple brandished a firearm in self defense and dissolved the threat without even shooting it.
So perhaps change your analysis to "For every time a gun in the home was discharged in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting," and you might have a more accurate portrayal. Well, that is find all the times one was used but never shot.
So the differences between the US and Sweden's murder rate couldn't be because there are 30 times as many people in the US? Or the difference in social programs, level of education, job opportunities and so on? I mean is it just that simple that it's the number of guns? I mean they were number 2 on the UN's development index in 2004 after all.
But lets look at this a little deeper why don't we. The median age in the US is 38 years old and 42 in Sweden. Not much of an age difference but likely a maturity difference there. According to numbers in the CIA world fact book, unemployment in the US is at 9.3 and 8.3 in Sweden. Again, still no big differences but perhaps with the differences in government services, it's a huge difference. There's also compulsory military service in Sweden up until 2010. I'm sure people who serve in the military are a little more disciplined then those who don't. I'm also pretty sure the US is the leading Cocaine consumer and has a relatively high drug use population.
But lets look at gun ownership. Switzerland has a higher gun ownership rate then Sweden does. It's like 46 percent to 31.5 percent. Yet Switzerland has a lower murder rate then Sweden does. Now let's look at England. The UK's gun ownership is a dismal 5.6%. That's quite a bit lower then Sweden's 31%. Yet the UK's murder rate is much higher then Sweden's. In fact, it's about 5 times higher.
I'm not going to get into your gun theory on "spray" weapons outside of saying that it's illegal in the US to own a fully automatic weapon unless you have a valid permit for one and pay a pretty high fee for it. It's not like you can go to walmart and purchase a fully auto mac10. People who get a hold of these things are generally either responsible individuals or criminals violating the laws in the first place.
Anyways, I believe it has more to do with the socio-political realities of the countries then gun ownership and availability.
Why? It's totally missing the point about education. The education isn't to teach someone not to murder someone else, it's to teach people not to accidentally shoot themselves or someone else.
Your argument has gone from, "I'm right and your wrong because the is how I believe" to "you can't be right because I think you are stupid.". The funny thing is, you act like you are winning the battle of intelligence here.
Tell me, I'm not from your country, is that a valid debating tactic? I mean in the political debates, does the guy witha sound plan get trump by someone saying "the sky is green and you're stupid"? I can only imagine the idiocy that you think it normal.
Fuck you're a lazy one. For one, you don't actually go out and observe transistors in nature and then try to explain how they work. The process of understanding how momentum works is a very different process from utilizing already-known science to build a device you imagined would be useful. State these alleged "incorrect assumptions" if you can find them.
Dude, stop acting like the knowledge you have after the fact was known before the fact. You just making yourself look silly.
Hate to break it to you but your writing sucks, kiddo. It's been a long time since your third grade teacher told you otherwise and that hasn't been the case for a long time. Here's a tip: when you feel the need to call someone names, you don't have a decent argument. The whole point of my argument which you cannot seem to grasp is that the hypothesis isn't "there are no ghosts," but rather "tool [xyz] can detect ghosts". More detail explaining what shouldn't need it following more of your nonsense.
Perhaps it's more of your reading and reading comprehension skills sucks. And the entire point of my argument is that you don't know "tool [xyz] can detect ghosts" or not, you only know the ones people have attempted to use and reported on the results have not been able to find anything. That doesn't mean that none of them will ever work or that none has every detected anything supernatural. It means if it did we don't know about it.
I guess my point that keeps getting sidetracked is that the lack of evidence does not mean it's false. It only means it's not true yet. I replied to people stating it's false under some fallacious presumption that science has to prove it before it's true. That's simple now how it works and if it did, we wouldn't know half the shit we think we know.
That doesn't matter. The point is he's not thinking like a scientist despite using the lingo. Whether he actually is is of no consequence. Bad science is bad, regardless of who is doing it.
Lol.. HOw's he not thinking like a real scientists? I mean seriously, think about that. Worse case scenario, he will walk away knowing that either what he brought wasn't the right tools and he couldn't find any ghosts, Nothing happened to which they attribute to ghosts, or those things that happened which were attributed to ghosts, the tools found other explanations which are not supernatural.
But I seriously do not understand this new science movement. Since when are experiments only valid if they pertain to something well known in science? Since when is looking at something you know absolutely nothing about, just to see if there is an hint of evidence behind it that could be tested taboo in science? I mean seriously,what happened to the pioneering spirit in science? Don't tell me you all gave up and let it get outsources to Asia?
Again, my post is not about disproving ghosts. It's about the uselessness of looking for them.
And my post is about you not knowing the usefulness of looking until after looking. Ask yourself What if and fill in the rest for fucks sake. You simply do no know.
This has been answered, and only provides further reason against bothering with scientific endeavor.
Wow, so quantum mechanics is useless? I mean seriously, there are forces within quantum mechanics that totally defy conventional wisdom. Perhaps we should can all the quantum mechanics projects, sack the scientists involved because they aren't scientific, and put the money into something more useful like testing the theory that water it wet?
Look up the term "qualia"- it might actually help you understand the rest of my point. We can all see past your hostility and detect your embarrassment.
Lol.. Stop pretending you are smarter then other people. the point I made wa
And you missed mine. Ghosts exist, or do not exist. They do not have the potential to exist once previous inventions and further innovation allows someone to make one (as was the case with transistors).
They are there, or not, all evidence points to not as there IS no evidence.
What makes you say that? Seriously, we are talking about entities that supposedly operate outside the realm of physics and nature as we understand it. Why are you so certain that absolutely nothing could do this?
Sorry, you are wrong. If bears are in a wood, they shit in the wood, and you can find it provided you conduct a thorough search. You can even go around a forest and collect all the shit you find, and infer from this the wildlife resident in those woods.
I'm sorry, but I think you failed to pay attention to a few key words. I didn't say it was impossible to find bear shit in the woods, I said it was "near impossible" to find it "when you don't know what to look". If I sent you into the woods to find some specled feathered woodpecker shit and you didn't have any information about it's habitat, what it ate, what it's feces looks like, you probably could never find it. Sure, you could just grab all the shit you could find and test it until you found DNA evidence of it comming from what you were looking for, but how would you know the DNA evidence pointed to the right thing when you don't have any to go off of? Besides, wouldn't it get prohibitively expensive doing it that way?
Everything that has been proven to exist 'obeys the laws of physics'. Sometime we see things obeying the law of physics due to something we can't see and can infer that somethings existence. Ghosts so not fall into either category. I suppose you think believing in god is silly? Or is that another fantasy you subscribe to?
lol.. So you failed at reading what was in front of you, then jumped to calling the belief in a god a fantasy. In case you do not know what that noise is, it's all the whooshing going buy you. Eventually, you will have to start ducking from all the air traffic from points flying over your head. don't worry about who believe in God or not. It doesn't pertain to this at all.
You might suppose that personal experience validates something. Scientifically it doesn't. Your standards of evidence suck.
Lol.. Really. So when you got stopped at a red light on the way home from work today, I should not believe one word you say about it because there is not scientific evidence of that light being red or you stopping at it. I can default to calling you a delusional fantasist because there is no compelling scientific evidence about it at all- just your word or personal experience. And when you try to convince me you're telling the truth, I can say your standards for evidence sucks.
Do you even think about what you write before doing it?
Chances are the events are actually natural and feeding an active imagination as apposed to supernatural in nature.
I guess the point is that the person claiming those people are delusional is probably working with even less information then those delusional people are. In other words, he doesn't know if they are delusional or not, and his premise of it being so is based all upon his belief structure not any physical facts. At least most of the people who claimed to see ghosts actually saw something. He's saying because he doesn't know about it, it doesn't exist and then claiming that's scientific.
Considering you're confusing the methods behind discovery and invention with the the scientific pursuit of answers to known phenomena, you're hardly in a position to critique comments on the nature of scientific work. But on to the meat of the issue...
Says the confused. Fuck dude, where is the confusion? I'm not confusing anything. It appears that you are the one who is confused based on your own incorrect assumptions.
Your rant claiming GP argues you shouldn't check on strange noises is simply a strawman of your own device, and the "think of the children" appeal to emotion was tasteless.
Learn what an appeal to emotion actually is you twit. I did not, and it's pretty clear in my writing, intend to validate the need to do the investigation by some emotional attachment which is what an appeal to emotion would require. I claimed that the results could be useful to someone which was contrary to the GP's statement "Further research in the area, after this much overwhelming evidence, is useless". He simply doesn't know if it would or would not be useless until after the research was done.
Instead GP simply states the obvious notion that a real scientist would not continue to associate strange noises with ghosts, because strange noises (or anything for that matter) have never before been ghosts and therefore make for a really stupid hypothesis to test. Should you actually discover a ghost, that'd certainly be worth studying, but until then the whole topic at hand is nearly as useless as your post. Speaking of the topic at hand...
First of all, I'm not sure where you got real scientists from. The OP who wrote the story submission didn't say he was a real scientists verses a fake one. Hell he didn't even say if he was or wasn't one. He said he wanted to run a proper scientific investigation and so far, most of the answers are, "give up, I don't believe in it, can't back that up with any evidence that they don't exists, but I know they don't, so don't even try to find out on your own".
Second, the vast majority of what we know about the world around us is directly linked to mans curiosity and desire to investigate what it doesn't know or completely understand. So this entire give up before you start because it's what I believe in bullshit is for the birds.
Third, you are completely wrong- mistaken the facts on your assumption "never before been ghosts and therefore make for a really stupid hypothesis to test". You simply do not know this because not all ghost stories have been investigated and there really is no way to do it accurately when they supposedly don't even follow laws of nature like Physics. I mean hell, outside of seeing one that couldn't be explained away, how could you legitimately check them? You couldn't weight it because they float, you couldn't lock it in a box because they move through solids, you can't kill it without invoking some other supernatural incantation or something.
This because no qualia are actually specified by use of the word "ghost."
And there likely will never be any with attitude like yours. Don't look into any of it because there is no information pointing to it being real so I "believe it's not real".
This leaves you with no idea what you are looking for when you happily ignore the fact that there's actually something causing the air to vibrate which should be the real focus of inquiry..
Lol.. The point wasn't to prove that ghost are real. The point was to see if it could be explained away by real forces. I mean hell the very definition of supernatural is beyond what is natural. If anything, the investigation will show what it happening and being misinterpreted.
Choosing night vision goggles like all those idiotic shows on television is no better a choice t
Er, transistors and digital signals didn't exist until they were invented, so you obviously could not have a 'scientifically valid positive result' until that point.
Great, you understood my point. It had to be someone wasting their time on something that didn't have any 'scientifically valid positive result' in order to get the first one.
You are confusing 'innovation resulting in unforeseen inventions' with 'things that there is no proof of existing when such proof could reasonably be obtained'.
No, not at all. They are one in the same at one point in time. Someone notices some behavior that was different, instead of saying that's not possible and forgetting about it, they explored it, created some things, and bamm, magically we have a TV in our Toaster. Don't confuse understood and meaningful results that are seen important after we are used to how they changed the world with the process in which they were discovered.
For example sasquach shit with DNA traces in it or multiple scientifically verified video footage of the kind of physical phenomena people attribute to ghosties.
Lol.. Yea, because all the Sasquash go potty in the same spot of the same set of woods and it's all distinguishable enough from other piles of shit that any 4th grader poking it with a stick would know it came out of bigfoot's ass. The problem is that the likely hood of finding bear shit in the woods when you don't know what to look for is near impossible and they are way more common then sasquash are supposed to be.
And your point about ghosties is even more insane as they supposedly don't even obey the laws of physics. So how are you even sure that the scared idiot who saw them, who also ended up having a camera recording at the same time, and was able to point and click without missing, would even capture and image or video of something that doesn't obey the laws of physics as we understand them.
Of course, it is POSSIBLE there is a large North American xenomorph that is VERY good at hiding, it's just quite unlikely given the lack of evidence thus far. But ghosts? Come on, they are up there with god for "not one piece of proof other than someone saying 'honest, believe me'" in all of history.
Do you really think legends that haven't been validated or invalidated yet, is on the same grounds as Hollywood movie creations? I mean these legends are products of stories that were around long before you or I was ever a glitter in daddy's eye. Some of these span centuries. I would certainly think that stories this old who have crazies popping up every so often validating them by supposed personal experiences deserve much more credit then something known to of been invented. As a matter of fact, anytime someone says they just made something up, I would give it a lot less chance of being something real then something people swear was real at some point in time.
Lol.. There was not once, ever, been a scientifically valid positive result for a transistor or digital signal, until- wait for it- someone went off on a wild goose chase and discovered that basis for what makes 90% of technology possible today.
But hey, I would say that ghosts and the supernatural simply hasn't been scientifically tested. It may be because they aren't real, but then again, how do you scientifically test something you can't scientifically understand? But in the cases where they were tested, it either turned out to be something else and a product of someone's imagination or simply a no show for the spirit. About the only way it could be tested is if there was more knowledge of it and that's only going to be possible if people continue to examine the supposed haunting.
Anyways, back to your "Further research in the area, after this much overwhelming evidence, is useless" comment, So what if it's useless? What if the so called haunting turns out to be some plumbing in bad shape and the investigation find it before it ruptures and ruins the entire house. What if it turns out to be a pedophile sneaking in and watching children sleep and they simply haven't been able to catch him because he hides his tracks so well so they blame it on being haunted. Surely if his investigation turns anything remotely like that up, it wouldn't be useless.
Yes, and lucky charms might really be made by leprechauns, but I see no point in wasting time looking into it.
I don't believe anyone is asking you to waste your time. They asked you how they could waste their own time. You see, there is a huge difference there. One of them is yours the other is theirs. If you don't want to help them because your time is so important to you to be doing something else, then simply do whatever it is you find more important. You don't really need to be concerned with someone else' time being wasted unless they work for you or something.
We know that every time we've looked into ghost stories, they've turned out to have a mundane explanation or to be complete bullshit.
Actually, no. Now they havn't. the majority of the time when someone investigates a gohst story, we find nothing at all. Why? Because it already happened and it happening again is little more then a chance. It might happen again, especially if there is an explanation to it like those creaking noise you hear in the night could be 19th century plumbing in the walls moving around as they expand and contract from a 80 degree day that gets to 50 or 60 at night. Other times, it simply doesn't happen again. And that is no different then me spitting out the window while driving on 3rd street just before crossing High street and you showing up a week later saying it didn't happen because it never happened when you were there at a later point in time.
If this guy wants to go out and have some fun with his friends and family, great, have at 'er, but let's not pretend that there's any chance of him actually discovering something new.
Actually, chances are that he probably will find something. So lets not pretend he won't. What he will probably find if approached properly is that something explainable is causing the events that are being interpreted as ghosts or haunting.
A piece of flashing came loose on the side of my house last summer, I started hearing howling and a low pitched growling inside the house at night when everything was off and quiet. It stopped right after I fixed the flashing. So even if what he finds isn't supernatural, there is a good chance it would be beneficial to someone. And I suspect he will find something, something like a loosely secured plumbing pipe that goes thump in the night or perhaps some wind whistling through a hole in the flashing or something of that nature.
Sure do, and there was plenty of scientists that investigated turning one metal into another. In fact, we can do it in small quantities. Scientists are investigating the rotation of the solar system and all disproving the Geocentric universe all the time too.
What the GP failed at and you caught was the fact that once something is disproved because something else is true, we don't need to go back and retest unless we are looking for a better understanding of what is true. We just use the proper explanation of it to our benefit by traveling, by predicting tide strengths and such because of the placement of the planets or sending satellites to them for study, or to create exotic metals that make life much more enjoyable and livable. However, there is no such thing going on with the paranormal and supernatural. Worse, science and nature in general doesn't have concrete and understandable rules that the supernatural has to follow (that we know of or can test) that we can learn about and take advantage of which places it mostly outside of scientific study.
But what's even more disappointing by the view that it's a waste of time is that our entire life and knowledge base as we know it delves from seeing something, finding it fascinating or impacting our lives and trying to understand it. The entire attitude that some have shown in which they think it's pointless to investigate anything they don't already believe possible would have doomed us to 7th century tools and manufacturing, medicine, and or if adopted today, it would pretty much freeze our technology where it's at.
Yea, I would imagine they would have had to purchase all of the ones they could with the same spelling in order to avoid misinformation sites and the such.
Seriously, I mean the scientific approach wouldn't be that they are delusional, it would be that no evidence has been presented to you. Unless you can scientifically explain away whatever they presented as evidence for their beliefs, the best you have is that you aren't convinced. Not that they are delusional.
The concept of a haunting has been around for quite some time. Some of it probably is misinterpreting facts and a mind running creatively wild, or purposeful lies designed to influence behavior of some sort. But you can't say all or every single claimed instance is because you simply do no know the facts or have the ability to test them. And as we all know, the lack of evidence does not mean it's impossible, it only means it hasn't been proven yet.
Slashdot Mirror
His concept is interesting though. It's not really promoting the progress of anything if it's been pulled out of public view and kept hidden away in some box as some sort of asset or something.
Perhaps there should be a time limit or a test to which something can be shown where the goal of to promote the progress of science and useful arts is being achieve else a copyright limits fall short or something.
Well, no. The GPL is a contract for a license.
I hate it when people attempt to miss the obvious here and apply some inane ideology.
Copyright law states you need a license to use the code. The gpl states you need to agree to these terms and follow these procedures if applicable to "your use as copyright law is concerned" and in exchange, you will have a license for as long as you are in compliance.
the entire ideology line is right in that copyright is the key to enforcement of the contract, but the GPL is an exchange of something of value defined by law for behavior. It's a contract for a license.
Don't be surprised. It's the entire didn't read the article expanded.
I know he did.. He also knew it wasn't constitutional as he mentioned in his speech concerning the repeal of prohibition.
"As a matter of fact and law, the governing rights of the States are all of those which have not been
surrendered to the National Government by the Constitution or its amendments. Wisely or unwisely,
people know that under the Eighteenth Amendment Congress has been given the right to legislate on this particular subject1, but this is not the case in the matter of a great number of other vital problems of government, such as the conduct of public utilities, of banks, of insurance, of business, of agriculture, of education, of social welfare and of a dozen other important features. In these, Washington must not be encouraged to interfere." - Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 1930
This was printed in it's entirety in the New York Times, March 3, 1930- two years before he became president.
This implementation by FDR can be seen as how close the communist party actually got in their attempts. They were able to pick up a lot of support from disenfranchised citizens going into and coming out of the great depression. They also, when forced to go underground, infiltrated the socialist movements and other liberal (of the time) creations.
NO, it's both.
You see, we are talking two distinctly different concepts here. One is in relation to news, and the other is in relation to the impact the information would have. an example of this is you calling your old lady fat behind her back in a meaningless joke. It's hardly news worthy but if she found out, you would be in the dog house.
but lets go somewhere that isn't that glaringly obvious. 42 23 36. is that news worthy? I don't think so, is it important and damaging if it got out? Well, 25 years ago, it would be because it was the combination to my school locker.
You see, it's hardly damaging or meaningful in the sense that anyone is doing anything wrong. However, given to the wrong people, it can be very detrimental to have it out there. So why don't you stop acting like you are 3 and can't think about these things.
I would say there never was a watchdog press.
What there is was competition between participants in the press. They worked to scoop their competition and gain market share. It was a constant battle between them and being the first to get the dirt that everyone cared about (their government) meant sales. When all the papers and magazines started becoming conglomerations and getting their news from news service agencies, they only need a presence in an area.
The internet is sort of the same way now. The blogs were the people saying look at me, come to me, then when everyone had a blog and started pulling all their information from other people's blogs, we end up with a bunch of opinions about something already known.
But you could hardly call wikileaks a watchdog journalism. I would probably be hard pressed to even call it journalism at all. You see, there is not story behind the information. There is nothing completing it like you would get with great journalism. There's very little who what when, there is no why or how, and in the end, all you have is a piece of information that isn't anything major for the most part, even if all that was there.
As for the swayed by logic, perhaps I didn't get my point across after 2 posts. A lot of the information is in no way news worthy at all. It's just the discrete and confidential communications between some unprofessional people playing the role of diplomat or soldier. and while there is no bearing on anything illegal in those, there are elements that can be used to harm the US and the interests of the US. I mean seriously, is it illegal for a country to ask us to go to war with another over their nuclear weapons programs? Even if we decided against it?
The question was "Why is this glaringly obvious solution NEVER discussed?" and that answer is, because the largest portion of the leaks had nothing at all to do with *DO ILLEGAL SHIT* or *NOT SUBVERT ITS OWN IDEALS OF FREEDOM AND EQUALITY*. They could however, be in turned used against the US or it's allies in it's perfectly legitimate dealings around the world and at home. They could be used to defeat our efforts in wars that we are currently fighting. When you have 99% of the leaks overshadowing the less then 1% that pointed to something underhanded or illegal, even if you stretch those to include opinions on instances where it's not clear, you end up with people focusing on the nothing to see here leaks that can be used against us.
In other words, the glaringly obvious thing for most people is to stop the leaks. So a reporter got shot in a mistaken incident and they kept it quiet, now that it's in the open, it changes nothing. He's no less dead, to anyone familiar with combat, the copter crew, while not in the right, definitely did nothing criminal because they didn't know they were wrong until after the fact. So it out, we know about it now, nothing's different, except for all the other crap is out too. And that seems to be taking center stage.
Your right, Hitler was against communism. The problem is with the Spartacists movement and the communism underpinnings. It breathed the socialist party in which Hitler was able to gain power in by claiming communism was a jewish ploy to destroy Germany. There is technically little difference between communism and socialism except how it's administrated in practice.
As for your comment on Mussolini, you are getting your cart before your horse. The popular term totalitarian fascism really didn't exist as we know it until the mid 1920's. This is largely because Mussolini ended up defining it by his own actions. Anyways, the communist revolution in America was happening about the same time Mussolini was coming to power. Remember, in 1919, he formed the Milan fascio that advocated universal suffrage, the abolition of the Senate, land for the peasants, improvement of workers' conditions and a strong foreign policy. The perception of Mussolini at the time was no where near the eventual reality. The people didn't voluntarily elect a brutal dictator- they elected someone who turned into one.
Yea, because all 20 some thousand leaked documents all pertained to the US government trying to keep what most people who have actually saw the unedited version of the video thinks was simply an unfortunate friendly fire type incident based around the mis-identification of a threat in a war zone. I mean nothing was pertaining to not liking the way another country was doing something or anything like that. None of them were about citizens helping soldiers in the field by telling them where an IED was placed or where the bad guys always come from before the fights.
Yea, you're fucking right, what the hell was I thinking. You know, I actually believed the 10 or so thousand so called leaked documents that had absolutely nothing to do with that whatsoever at all were real and just candid communications between people who work in the government. Thanks for pointing out the fact that they all had to do with a helicopter crew shooting an armed escorted reporter in the middle of a war zone while carrying something that looked like a weapon from a distance. What in the hell would this world become if we would have focused on the 20 some thousand fake fucking documents and forgot about the one thing you are still railing about.
So then your approach would be to simply sit back and watch the enemey get stronger and stronger until they decide to overtake you?
I mean seriously, the entire communism equals bad things didn't start with world war two. It started when the communist party USA attempted to overthrow the US government and install a Mussolini type dictator between WWI and WWII. Then after WWII, the communists parties around the world folded in with the socialists parties because of the negative association with Hitler and that's why they are technically different but treated as the same by many in politics. To add to this, Russia who was upset about not being able to keep ground it fought to free from the Germans and Italians started just rolling into countries already decimated and taking them over. and they were operating under the same guise of communism.
So in the end, in less then one century, communism had been behind an attempted overthrow of the US government, it was the vehicle that allowed Hitler to gain power and do what he did, it allowed Russia to become the USSR, and when they are fighting the people of a country to force them into the system too, all they are doing is getting stronger and stronger until one day they become a serious threat to you again.
If you think ignoring your enemies while they get stronger is logical, prudent, noble or anything other then stupid, then I guess I should point to Europe and you can pick about any era in which there was war and see how that worked out.
Because a lot of the leaks had nothing to do with *DO ILLEGAL SHIT* or *NOT SUBVERT ITS OWN IDEALS OF FREEDOM AND EQUALITY*. But their releases can be detrimental to the country in any number of ways.
You seems to be placing some confirmation bias in your analysis.
You see, the number of times a gun was fired is not the number of times was used in a self defense. I know of people who have simple brandished a firearm in self defense and dissolved the threat without even shooting it.
So perhaps change your analysis to "For every time a gun in the home was discharged in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting," and you might have a more accurate portrayal. Well, that is find all the times one was used but never shot.
So the differences between the US and Sweden's murder rate couldn't be because there are 30 times as many people in the US? Or the difference in social programs, level of education, job opportunities and so on? I mean is it just that simple that it's the number of guns? I mean they were number 2 on the UN's development index in 2004 after all.
But lets look at this a little deeper why don't we. The median age in the US is 38 years old and 42 in Sweden. Not much of an age difference but likely a maturity difference there. According to numbers in the CIA world fact book, unemployment in the US is at 9.3 and 8.3 in Sweden. Again, still no big differences but perhaps with the differences in government services, it's a huge difference. There's also compulsory military service in Sweden up until 2010. I'm sure people who serve in the military are a little more disciplined then those who don't. I'm also pretty sure the US is the leading Cocaine consumer and has a relatively high drug use population.
But lets look at gun ownership. Switzerland has a higher gun ownership rate then Sweden does. It's like 46 percent to 31.5 percent. Yet Switzerland has a lower murder rate then Sweden does. Now let's look at England. The UK's gun ownership is a dismal 5.6%. That's quite a bit lower then Sweden's 31%. Yet the UK's murder rate is much higher then Sweden's. In fact, it's about 5 times higher.
I'm not going to get into your gun theory on "spray" weapons outside of saying that it's illegal in the US to own a fully automatic weapon unless you have a valid permit for one and pay a pretty high fee for it. It's not like you can go to walmart and purchase a fully auto mac10. People who get a hold of these things are generally either responsible individuals or criminals violating the laws in the first place.
Anyways, I believe it has more to do with the socio-political realities of the countries then gun ownership and availability.
Why? It's totally missing the point about education. The education isn't to teach someone not to murder someone else, it's to teach people not to accidentally shoot themselves or someone else.
Look at the op's statement again.
Lol..
Your argument has gone from, "I'm right and your wrong because the is how I believe" to "you can't be right because I think you are stupid.". The funny thing is, you act like you are winning the battle of intelligence here.
Tell me, I'm not from your country, is that a valid debating tactic? I mean in the political debates, does the guy witha sound plan get trump by someone saying "the sky is green and you're stupid"? I can only imagine the idiocy that you think it normal.
Dude, stop acting like the knowledge you have after the fact was known before the fact. You just making yourself look silly.
Perhaps it's more of your reading and reading comprehension skills sucks. And the entire point of my argument is that you don't know "tool [xyz] can detect ghosts" or not, you only know the ones people have attempted to use and reported on the results have not been able to find anything. That doesn't mean that none of them will ever work or that none has every detected anything supernatural. It means if it did we don't know about it.
I guess my point that keeps getting sidetracked is that the lack of evidence does not mean it's false. It only means it's not true yet. I replied to people stating it's false under some fallacious presumption that science has to prove it before it's true. That's simple now how it works and if it did, we wouldn't know half the shit we think we know.
Lol.. HOw's he not thinking like a real scientists? I mean seriously, think about that. Worse case scenario, he will walk away knowing that either what he brought wasn't the right tools and he couldn't find any ghosts, Nothing happened to which they attribute to ghosts, or those things that happened which were attributed to ghosts, the tools found other explanations which are not supernatural.
But I seriously do not understand this new science movement. Since when are experiments only valid if they pertain to something well known in science? Since when is looking at something you know absolutely nothing about, just to see if there is an hint of evidence behind it that could be tested taboo in science? I mean seriously,what happened to the pioneering spirit in science? Don't tell me you all gave up and let it get outsources to Asia?
And my post is about you not knowing the usefulness of looking until after looking. Ask yourself What if and fill in the rest for fucks sake. You simply do no know.
Wow, so quantum mechanics is useless? I mean seriously, there are forces within quantum mechanics that totally defy conventional wisdom. Perhaps we should can all the quantum mechanics projects, sack the scientists involved because they aren't scientific, and put the money into something more useful like testing the theory that water it wet?
Lol.. Stop pretending you are smarter then other people. the point I made wa
What makes you say that? Seriously, we are talking about entities that supposedly operate outside the realm of physics and nature as we understand it. Why are you so certain that absolutely nothing could do this?
I'm sorry, but I think you failed to pay attention to a few key words. I didn't say it was impossible to find bear shit in the woods, I said it was "near impossible" to find it "when you don't know what to look". If I sent you into the woods to find some specled feathered woodpecker shit and you didn't have any information about it's habitat, what it ate, what it's feces looks like, you probably could never find it. Sure, you could just grab all the shit you could find and test it until you found DNA evidence of it comming from what you were looking for, but how would you know the DNA evidence pointed to the right thing when you don't have any to go off of? Besides, wouldn't it get prohibitively expensive doing it that way?
lol.. So you failed at reading what was in front of you, then jumped to calling the belief in a god a fantasy. In case you do not know what that noise is, it's all the whooshing going buy you. Eventually, you will have to start ducking from all the air traffic from points flying over your head. don't worry about who believe in God or not. It doesn't pertain to this at all.
Lol.. Really. So when you got stopped at a red light on the way home from work today, I should not believe one word you say about it because there is not scientific evidence of that light being red or you stopping at it. I can default to calling you a delusional fantasist because there is no compelling scientific evidence about it at all- just your word or personal experience. And when you try to convince me you're telling the truth, I can say your standards for evidence sucks.
Do you even think about what you write before doing it?
Chances are the events are actually natural and feeding an active imagination as apposed to supernatural in nature.
I guess the point is that the person claiming those people are delusional is probably working with even less information then those delusional people are. In other words, he doesn't know if they are delusional or not, and his premise of it being so is based all upon his belief structure not any physical facts. At least most of the people who claimed to see ghosts actually saw something. He's saying because he doesn't know about it, it doesn't exist and then claiming that's scientific.
Says the confused. Fuck dude, where is the confusion? I'm not confusing anything. It appears that you are the one who is confused based on your own incorrect assumptions.
Learn what an appeal to emotion actually is you twit. I did not, and it's pretty clear in my writing, intend to validate the need to do the investigation by some emotional attachment which is what an appeal to emotion would require. I claimed that the results could be useful to someone which was contrary to the GP's statement "Further research in the area, after this much overwhelming evidence, is useless". He simply doesn't know if it would or would not be useless until after the research was done.
First of all, I'm not sure where you got real scientists from. The OP who wrote the story submission didn't say he was a real scientists verses a fake one. Hell he didn't even say if he was or wasn't one. He said he wanted to run a proper scientific investigation and so far, most of the answers are, "give up, I don't believe in it, can't back that up with any evidence that they don't exists, but I know they don't, so don't even try to find out on your own".
Second, the vast majority of what we know about the world around us is directly linked to mans curiosity and desire to investigate what it doesn't know or completely understand. So this entire give up before you start because it's what I believe in bullshit is for the birds.
Third, you are completely wrong- mistaken the facts on your assumption "never before been ghosts and therefore make for a really stupid hypothesis to test". You simply do not know this because not all ghost stories have been investigated and there really is no way to do it accurately when they supposedly don't even follow laws of nature like Physics. I mean hell, outside of seeing one that couldn't be explained away, how could you legitimately check them? You couldn't weight it because they float, you couldn't lock it in a box because they move through solids, you can't kill it without invoking some other supernatural incantation or something.
And there likely will never be any with attitude like yours. Don't look into any of it because there is no information pointing to it being real so I "believe it's not real".
Lol.. The point wasn't to prove that ghost are real. The point was to see if it could be explained away by real forces. I mean hell the very definition of supernatural is beyond what is natural. If anything, the investigation will show what it happening and being misinterpreted.
Great, you understood my point. It had to be someone wasting their time on something that didn't have any 'scientifically valid positive result' in order to get the first one.
No, not at all. They are one in the same at one point in time. Someone notices some behavior that was different, instead of saying that's not possible and forgetting about it, they explored it, created some things, and bamm, magically we have a TV in our Toaster. Don't confuse understood and meaningful results that are seen important after we are used to how they changed the world with the process in which they were discovered.
Lol.. Yea, because all the Sasquash go potty in the same spot of the same set of woods and it's all distinguishable enough from other piles of shit that any 4th grader poking it with a stick would know it came out of bigfoot's ass. The problem is that the likely hood of finding bear shit in the woods when you don't know what to look for is near impossible and they are way more common then sasquash are supposed to be.
And your point about ghosties is even more insane as they supposedly don't even obey the laws of physics. So how are you even sure that the scared idiot who saw them, who also ended up having a camera recording at the same time, and was able to point and click without missing, would even capture and image or video of something that doesn't obey the laws of physics as we understand them.
Do you really think legends that haven't been validated or invalidated yet, is on the same grounds as Hollywood movie creations? I mean these legends are products of stories that were around long before you or I was ever a glitter in daddy's eye. Some of these span centuries. I would certainly think that stories this old who have crazies popping up every so often validating them by supposed personal experiences deserve much more credit then something known to of been invented. As a matter of fact, anytime someone says they just made something up, I would give it a lot less chance of being something real then something people swear was real at some point in time.
Lol.. Yea, I guess that was an oxymoron of sorts.
Lol.. There was not once, ever, been a scientifically valid positive result for a transistor or digital signal, until- wait for it- someone went off on a wild goose chase and discovered that basis for what makes 90% of technology possible today.
But hey, I would say that ghosts and the supernatural simply hasn't been scientifically tested. It may be because they aren't real, but then again, how do you scientifically test something you can't scientifically understand? But in the cases where they were tested, it either turned out to be something else and a product of someone's imagination or simply a no show for the spirit. About the only way it could be tested is if there was more knowledge of it and that's only going to be possible if people continue to examine the supposed haunting.
Anyways, back to your "Further research in the area, after this much overwhelming evidence, is useless" comment, So what if it's useless? What if the so called haunting turns out to be some plumbing in bad shape and the investigation find it before it ruptures and ruins the entire house. What if it turns out to be a pedophile sneaking in and watching children sleep and they simply haven't been able to catch him because he hides his tracks so well so they blame it on being haunted. Surely if his investigation turns anything remotely like that up, it wouldn't be useless.
I don't believe anyone is asking you to waste your time. They asked you how they could waste their own time. You see, there is a huge difference there. One of them is yours the other is theirs. If you don't want to help them because your time is so important to you to be doing something else, then simply do whatever it is you find more important. You don't really need to be concerned with someone else' time being wasted unless they work for you or something.
Actually, no. Now they havn't. the majority of the time when someone investigates a gohst story, we find nothing at all. Why? Because it already happened and it happening again is little more then a chance. It might happen again, especially if there is an explanation to it like those creaking noise you hear in the night could be 19th century plumbing in the walls moving around as they expand and contract from a 80 degree day that gets to 50 or 60 at night. Other times, it simply doesn't happen again. And that is no different then me spitting out the window while driving on 3rd street just before crossing High street and you showing up a week later saying it didn't happen because it never happened when you were there at a later point in time.
Actually, chances are that he probably will find something. So lets not pretend he won't. What he will probably find if approached properly is that something explainable is causing the events that are being interpreted as ghosts or haunting.
A piece of flashing came loose on the side of my house last summer, I started hearing howling and a low pitched growling inside the house at night when everything was off and quiet. It stopped right after I fixed the flashing. So even if what he finds isn't supernatural, there is a good chance it would be beneficial to someone. And I suspect he will find something, something like a loosely secured plumbing pipe that goes thump in the night or perhaps some wind whistling through a hole in the flashing or something of that nature.
Sure do, and there was plenty of scientists that investigated turning one metal into another. In fact, we can do it in small quantities. Scientists are investigating the rotation of the solar system and all disproving the Geocentric universe all the time too.
What the GP failed at and you caught was the fact that once something is disproved because something else is true, we don't need to go back and retest unless we are looking for a better understanding of what is true. We just use the proper explanation of it to our benefit by traveling, by predicting tide strengths and such because of the placement of the planets or sending satellites to them for study, or to create exotic metals that make life much more enjoyable and livable. However, there is no such thing going on with the paranormal and supernatural. Worse, science and nature in general doesn't have concrete and understandable rules that the supernatural has to follow (that we know of or can test) that we can learn about and take advantage of which places it mostly outside of scientific study.
But what's even more disappointing by the view that it's a waste of time is that our entire life and knowledge base as we know it delves from seeing something, finding it fascinating or impacting our lives and trying to understand it. The entire attitude that some have shown in which they think it's pointless to investigate anything they don't already believe possible would have doomed us to 7th century tools and manufacturing, medicine, and or if adopted today, it would pretty much freeze our technology where it's at.
Yea, I would imagine they would have had to purchase all of the ones they could with the same spelling in order to avoid misinformation sites and the such.
What makes you think they are delusions?
Seriously, I mean the scientific approach wouldn't be that they are delusional, it would be that no evidence has been presented to you. Unless you can scientifically explain away whatever they presented as evidence for their beliefs, the best you have is that you aren't convinced. Not that they are delusional.
The concept of a haunting has been around for quite some time. Some of it probably is misinterpreting facts and a mind running creatively wild, or purposeful lies designed to influence behavior of some sort. But you can't say all or every single claimed instance is because you simply do no know the facts or have the ability to test them. And as we all know, the lack of evidence does not mean it's impossible, it only means it hasn't been proven yet.