Actually, it does matter what the attacked party believes. If I arguing or chastising you and threaten to shoot you with a redeemer or bioriffle, no one would ever take the threat seriously regardless of what I thought about their real life existence.
Here is the problem with insults as you minimized the situation to. Ever heard the old adage about sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me? There is truth in that because unless you believe in what is being said, you have to actually allow it to hurt you. It's like racial name calling, If someone calls me a cracker, I laugh because it's not a very good insult to me. It's actually kind of funny to tell you the truth. I know their intent was to insult me or something, but it only works if I let it. It's like the N-word, I find it ridiculous that anyone would let someone else have that much control over them by taking personal offense over word being spoken. In fact, most of the people who use the word would drop it if it didn't have the effect it has because the intent of using it is generally to be rude or insult someone.
Now it might be a different story if someone was calling me a cracker while attacking me, or calling a black man a nigger while attacking them, but just saying it requires nothing of you to participate in it unless you willingly fall down to their levels.
I mean fuck, we aren't in third grade anymore. Does someone attempting to insult you with things you do not believe in or subscribe to really effect a person? I mean if I tell you to go to imagination land, or if you don't do something you will be beaten with a wet noodle, are you somehow offended now? Adults should act like adults and not be concerned with idiots who believe in unprovable things you do not.
Whistle Blower protections only apply when the actor it revealing something the government did illegally or immorally. I fail to see how that would apply to someone callously revealing secrets.
You do not know it wasn't sensitive at the time. In fact, if there were planned multiple attacks, the very information could have allowed an attacker to make adjustments to their plans without being detected.
Suppose for one instance that instead of being one foiled attack, there was plans for 20 bombings in this same fashion within hours or days of each other. In the hours or days right after the attacks, knowing of these security changes could be all that is needed to implement the same attack an hour and 5 minutes before the plane reaches it's destination. But without the information, the attack would proceed as planed and then the restrictions would have either forced the plan to be aborted or force the attacker to disobey one of the rules in which case appropriate actions could have been taken to prevent the completion of the bombing.
One of the problems I think you are missing is that you seem to be looking at what did happen, not what could have happened. After the fact, it's easy to miss the benefits of the restrictions that were present at the time of the restrictions. Had there been multiple attacks, the restrictions would have presented problems to the attackers that could have been detected and foiled because of the restrictions which were not known at the time. There wasn't multiple attacks so this point eludes a lot of people and they do not see the seriousness of making something secret known before it should have been. Sure, ten days later, it's pointless to keep it a secret, but when the fear is similar attacks that day or the next, secrecy could be key to defeating them.
As someone already pointed out that the missing point is someone who swore to keep it a secrete purposely failed in doing so, I think the point of keeping it a secrete for as long as possible does carry some weight.
It's more along the lines of what we didn't know and how someone would react. At the time, we didn't know if the failed bombing attempt was a single actions or a connected plan to hit several sites like with the 9/11 attacks. Keeping this secrete until the last minutes of the flights can alert air marshals or trained TSA agents on the flights to flustered passengers who refused to cooperate or follow the rules. As for the no one will be leaving their seats the last hour of the flight, that can be explained without informing people of the real purpose of it or signaling it's for the entire last hour of the flight. A simple announcement of " we are expecting to be entering some turbulent areas ahead and the fasten seat belts sign will be on for a period of time, anyone needing to use the facilities should do so now". Combine these restrictions with the no communications (so other terrorist can't warn others of their experience) and the nothing on your lap so as your actions can be observed, and you have what was needed to detect a future bombing.
Thankfully, this guy was acting alone and there wasn't more attacks in progress. But these rules and keeping them secrete for as long as possible would provide as much potential warning as well as detection if another attacker was attempting to do the same things. Ideally, if the attacker could have blown the plane up over the runway, he would have brought the holiday travel to a stand still if not hitting part of the terminal and causing mass casualties. I think something along those lines was the plan of attack. The problem with spelling these things out before we knew the threats were over is that it allows attackers at a time we knew we needed to be cautious to employ the techniques you describe and "he puts his plan into motion with an hour and five minutes to go." But if they remained secrete, we had an ace up our sleeve because they would have had to disobey one of the rules in order to put their plan into effect and we stood a chance of detecting them.
Remember, it's not as much about what we know now as it is what we knew then. At the time, we had a foiled bombing attempt on a busy holiday season, we didn't know if it was an isolated act or not, and the best chances of foiling more attacks of this nature was to create a situation where the attacker needed to be obvious when implementing his attack.
A fine explanation of a representative democracy. But the break down is with political parties and party line votes. This can defeat the promise of fairness or the differences of minority verses majority.
I think the founding fathers in the US understood these hazards which is why they insisted on the constitution proscribing what the federal government could do instead of only what it couldn't do. If the federal government was limited to it's constitutional role, what would be left is states who could be corrupted into party line majorities which would still leave a minority rule when weighed against the other states.
I'm not for removing political parties, but I am for limiting government to it's constitutional roles whether it's the state or federal constitutions. If a current federal law or program is so important, then all states would implement it on their own without the federal support. They would probably run them better too. This is because the needs of someone on the east coast isn't always the same as on the west coast and having the flexibility to cater to the citizens of a state based on their own needs or desires would better serve those citizens then a blanket coverage for all states imposed by the federal government.
As for the "no modern country in the world with reasonable resources has lost to a land invasion since 1945" is sort of an oxymoron. I mean that with the utmost respect too.
You see, after 1945, NATO was created to guarantee that most modern countries would never be left defending on their own. When Russia invaded Georgia, the US Non-violently interjected as Georgia was a newly created NATO country.
Anyways, after WWII, the US took on a role of increasing their military size in an attempt to convey a message of strength to the broken down European nations which needed to focus a lot on rebuilding. We haven't really removed ourselves from that mindset but we do share military technology with our European counter parts and it's pretty much a mutual agreement. As we all know, WWII started because of the ineffectiveness of the league of nations and all countries, including the US, being unwilling to enforce it's decree and stop Germany from violating the treaty of Versailles. We all sat back and refuse our earlier obligations to defend European countries from attack too. The new mentality is based more on not letting that happen again, the US took it more seriously then most of Europe, but that was the plan- to help Europe rebuild.
Once you get past the notion that the government is worthless and incompetent, you can see how the new rules while overly drastic do have some applicable scenarios.
The no items and hands in plain sight the last hour of the flight is more or less because this person attempted to finish the assembly and detonation of a bomb at the last minute. His destination was a crowded city which means mass casualties almost anywhere the plane crashed if the pilots lost control. This is especially true in the terminals at the airport if he detonated on landing and the plane crashed into all the holiday travelers.
No going to the toilet in the last hour also helps avoid this scenario from happening behind closed doors.
The no announcing major cities or land marks isn't for timing, it is more so they can't just pick an alternative once they know about the last hour restrictions. Suppose there was a sleeper on the plane who saw the attempt get foiled. He could have phoned someone else who has an option of taking their chances or picking an alternative target and hope for lots of destruction. Someone on another flight could have been foiled in the new rules causing someone to alert others attempting to do the same.
Now I will agree that long term, these restrictions seem stupid and ineffective. But in an effort to limit damages from a coordinated attack, they seem pretty reasonable. Air marshals on the planes could look and potentially spot someone disobeying the new rules and possible stop any similar attack in much the same way as the original attacker was foiled. When this happened, we really didn't know if more people were planning on doing the same or how limited something like this would be. It's especially troubling when they learned this guy was on a terrorist watch list, the FBI lost track of his movements, and reportedly, his own father went to the US embassy and complained his son was taking some radical views and feared he was going to attack the US. I'm sure the FAA and government officials knew about this shit long before the public did.
In most "at will" states, the reasons for discharge also become a major factor in how the unemployment compensation if any will be paid. Also, there is a reputation thing that comes along to some of the more senior staff members where a firing can severely damage the ability for a rehire. Some jobs are only available to people with good job records and a firing like that could really screw someone unjustly.
So even though it would be meaningless in keeping your job, there may still be recourse available if not just qualifying for unemployment compensation. In my state, the employer has to kick in a portion of the unemployment compensation and they also pay premiums to the state which can go up if too many unjustified dismissals happen. Sadly, they do not consider temporary layoffs when the worker never gets called back as a dismissal. This makes is easy for companies to clean house by laying off a bunch of workers and only calling back the ones they want for whatever reason without any retribution.
In most states that I am aware of, "at will" means any reason but there are safeguards in place to help employees for bad reasons. How this effects the company sort of varies.
True, and in most states, the background check isn't a requirement for legitimate private sales either. However, I do know of a person with a Federal firearms license who attempted to get around the background checks with one customer and it blew up in his face.
Not to mention this is why taxing corporations is a bad thing. They will A: look to be obligated with the least taxes and rightfully so, and B: just pass the costs onto the consumer who actually pays the taxes.
As for using the courts in Washington state, The owner and founder of MS is a legal resident of Washington as long as MS being located there and employing a crap load of other people who for all intents and purposes are Washington state citizens paying taxes and they deserve the legal protection of the state regardless of how much money he or his companies or any of the employees make somewhere else. This is not to mention that the losers of lawsuits generally pay courts costs so it isn't really like the state is out of much in the end anyways.
Evangelical atheist or evangelical Christians. Both are known to exist and I would say the first clearly is worse then the later. At least with evangelical Christians, they believe they are doing you good. With evangelical atheist, they are just trying to troll and be an ass.
Nah, they can use an laparoscope or something similar to place the sensors inside the vaginal womb and image though the placenta more directly. If they can't do it now, that's the next logical approach. Anyways, it will likely be used on artificial inseminated eggs first so there wouldn't be any need for a host carrier outside of removing a few eggs to get the anti abortion images.
He's probably going to need to buy an entirely new machine in order to save any money. He estimates that he thinks he might be able to save $70 a year so a new Mac Mini will cost him between $500-$600. That's going to mean somewhere between 7 to 9 years for repayment from savings. If he gets a used one, then he might trim that down quite a bit but I think his objection isn't to spending money now, but potentially having to spend money in the future when it may not be as readily availible.
What ever he gets, he runs the potential problem of it not lasting as long as his financial crunch might run. Getting a new machine now would take a lot of the risks out of that secenario. It would suck in the attempt to save $70 a year, if he spends $300 (a little over 4 years to break even) on something used and lasted only 2 years when his fear of the recession hitting home actually comes true.
I agree with your suggestion on the Acer Revo. I would recommend an eSATA raid enclosure running a mirror though of at least two drives and possibly a spare single drive enclosure (about $20) so if a drive goes bad when the recession hits home, the remaining drive could be placed in the enclosure alone and you wouldn't have to worry about powering the raid board and back plane.
It's isn't - the dog thing is a trivial, very poor example of a ring species, one that you brought up. Even the existence of ring species isn't very good evidence on its own - it was just an additional supporting point I threw in. But of course you'd rather argue over a detail in a bad example of something that we both agree wouldn't be good evidence on it's own, that way you don't have to deal with all the other, more definitive, evidence. None of this has anything to do with the original point - evolution is well-supported science while creationism is (to use your word) bunk.
The only reason we got into the details of it was because you were claiming it was a legitimate example and I claimed it was bunk using unsupported assumptions (like only a portion of the breed). Now, I'm not going to disagree with Evolution being a well supported science, I am disagreeing with most of the claims of observed speciation and how they rely on incomplete knowledge, semantics, and altering definitions that appear completely silly when applied otherwise outside of the supposed speciation event.
I do not think anyone disputed the adaptation for survival parts of evolutionary theory, but it has become very much a bunch of smoke and mirrors to almost a religious conviction for some to prove evolution and speciation as a fact.
There are always skeptics and believers, but not the kind reinterpretation you're suggesting.
I do not think you could be more wrong. As I previously explained, you had entire populations who wouldn't believe in the power of a god or supposed god when fractions of the same populations staked their lives on it. Why is it impossible to believe that someone wouldn't have seen it as a con before science exists? Did they not possess their own logic capabilities? I mean we were counting and doing math long before science existed so we know there was a sense of order and absolutes.
I wouldn't count on logic and reality to help you out here. You abandoned logic when you started repeatedly contradicting yourself about whether it was possible to infer the moral status of an act from its legal state. And you turned your back on reality with your refusal to countenance that they could be any difference at all between the illegal copying of a bunch of bits and bytes which left the original unchanged, and the equally illegal removal of physical property that must be replaced if the business is to be resumed.
Actually logic is the very defining mark of my point. It goes back to before and after the fact just like I previously said. It's a matter of A, B, C, and you are attempting to claim A,C,B or C,B,A. You even demonstrate this later in your reply. And no, I didn't contradict myself about legal status and moral status from the law, if you are moral, you are lawful until the law doesn't allow you to remain moral. At that point, you can take actions to remain moral which might violate the law or might not. As I said before, it has nothing to do with the law but your actions in regard to the law.
Neither nor reality seem to have much interested you so far in this discussion; it seems a bit late to appeal to them now.
I can see how you might think that when your basis for reality seems to be a bunch of what ifs and propbablys based on a course of action that has never taken place. However, to the vast majority of people, they wait to observe the facts and rely on the empirical evidence at hand.
Do you really not see the contradiction in those two sentences? I ask you to argue the point based on the morality of the action rather than legality of same. You state that you have been doing so, and then in the next sentence construct an argument entirely dependent on the legality of the action. You started out contradicting yourself from one post to the next. Now you're doing it from one sentence to the next. Do you want to see if you can get the contradiction inside a sentence, just for the exercise? I'll be impressed if you can.
Nothing is in conflict or contradiction there. It goes back to your inability to follow logic and insisting on putting C before A or B when everyone else in the world knows that it's A,B,C. To be moral, you have to be lawful until the law makes you immoral then it's your actions that dictate whether you remain moral or not. It's not a difficult concept.
But since you cannot know the other party's justifications (since I assume you are not telepathic either) then you cannot say whether or not their actions are moral or immoral based solely upon whether or not those actions violate the law. So, what I have been asking is that, if you believe the action is (im)moral in its own right and without reference to the law, then you argue the case without reference to the law. It's not a difficult notion, really.
Your right that I would be making an uninformed opinion but your wrong that the opinion couldn't be made. To be moral, you will have to be lawful and play by the same rules that bind everyone else until the law jeopardizes your morality. It's then your actions which will dictate whether you remain moral or not so by violating the law, I can assume your not moral until it's demonstrated that the violation made you retain your morality. If you do not justify those actions or they aren't obvious, I will be making an uninformed assumption but it's there to make.
Because you can't know the other party's justification (or even lack of same) and therefore cannot assume (im)morality. Therefore it does not follow that a person who is in violation of the law is therefore behaving in an immoral manner, nor that one in compliance is behaving morally. The two concepts are fundamentally orthogonal.
But what you do not seem to be understanding is that my physical property rights can still prevent you from pointing the replicator at my basketball in the first place. I can create an electronic shield that prevents it from being copied or simply not take the ball to where you can copy it.
So while you might be able to unobtrusively copy something, it doesn't mean that you actually can or that I lose all rights so you can.
As for something already in the public, well, then you would be copying someone else' property and not mine. You might have something similar or exactly the same but it isn't mine and you still had to get permission somewhere to copy it. This permission would come in the form of getting the device whatever it is, to a place in which you could copy it. That could be by you purchasing it yourself or by someone who has allowing access to it. So again, even though it's easy for you to copy it, it doesn't mean you can or that you have the right to do so with only physical property rights being involved.
The word 'population' in the definition does not have to mean the same thing as 'breed', nothing requires the inclusion of techichi or any other dogs from before contact with the Spanish in the population. It also doesn't matter if the divide developed naturally or artificially. There's a difference between ignoring something and acknowledging it exists but showing that it isn't relevant.
The problem is that it's completely relevant. IF you take otherwise identical things and segregate them only because of size, you reaching for your fucking point and spouting nothing but bunk. If that's what you think science is and proof of evolution should be, then your stupid and treating it like a religion.
Philosophy has a reliance on reasoned argument, in fact that's what distinguished it from religion. Defending beliefs merely because they make some people "feel better" is not part of philosophy, and you should be ashamed for implying that it is. If you want to say "Yes, it's irrational, but it helps me psychologically." that's fine, but don't turn around and demand that your opinion be treated with the same respect as rational thought.
Actually, philosophy is very much about "feel good". Not only is it about figuring things out, it's about being happy and so on to. It goes with the mental health of a person and the state of mind and as a matter of fact, there is even a branch of philosophy that deals specifically with religion so there is absolutely not separation between then as you cluelessly attempt to posit.
Doing that is wanting to remain ignorant. Checking your ticket is testing a hypothesis, which is entirely rational. From my perspective, you're advocating assuming that you ticket's a winner without checking it, and basing your financial decisions on that.
Yea, that was my point of comparing it to your analogy.
But that's exactly my point - almost no-one would have interpreted that way until science comes along, and then it's "Oh, that's not what it really means.".
Sure they would. You don't think there wasn't skeptics in biblical times? I mean hell, people openly defied a god who supposedly had the ability to destroy entire towns and make small armies more powerful then the largest armies in the lands. You have people in the middle ages that refuted magic and burned witches and sorcerers at the stake. And this is back when science was little more then finding the right spells and elements to turn lead into gold.
So you were using "real" in a precise, technical sense. Good lord man, is your entire argument so very fragile that you can't afford to concede even such a tiny, common-sense point?
You mean will I throw out logic and reality so you can inject a hypothetical that not only hasn't happened in real life, but there is no way to quantify it's actual implementation in order for you to claim I'm wrong? No I won't. Anyways, my argument allows for history to be different as your hypothetical suggests. The problem is that history is not different and therefore it's accurate to measure the current loss by the number of unauthorized uses. You can kill the baby and claim he would have grown up to be a doctor who could have saved himself, however that ignores the fact that never happened and will not happen because the act is already done. You seem to be wanting to forget that the act has already been done and concentrate on the if you didn't kill the baby. If you could go back in time and make things different, they would be, however, you can't and they aren't so treating it like it already happened when it did is fair and proper.
Then, as I may have mentioned before, argue the morality or immorality of the actions directly, rather than bringing up the damn law every time there's a question as to morality.
I have been arguing the morality of the actions directly. You need to be lawful to be moral unless there is a conflict. In other words, you have to set out playing by the same rules as everyone else in bound by until it becomes somehow unconscionable. At that point, you have to justify at least to yourself why not following the law or actually violating it would be moral. And yes, with copyright, there are two options to not following the law, one of which doesn't cross a moral line. If you find copyright to be wrong, you can simply not participate in it (ie, don't use the programs, don't buy the crap being pushed and so on) without ever coming into a morality quagmire. The other option is to take the product and use it without compensation as the law allows. In that case, you have to justify at least to yourself why that is more moral. One such justification might be passing out copies of CPR and EMT training materials to workers at a Free Clinic in unstable areas where the reference material could mean the difference between life and death. What I would consider an immoral justification would be that you don't like copyright so instead of not participating, you feel you have some right to just take the sweat and labor of others without payment.
And you're going to wind up doing serious jail time for the rape and torture of harmless old grannies, seeing as how we're back being hypothetica, again.
And the point here is what? WE already know it's a hypothetical that is outside the scope of following the law is a moral obligation until the law comes into a conflict with morality. Being a lawless bunch and taking the advantage of not following the rules that others are bind to is not moral in any sense.
I think you misspelled "opinion" there.
No, I got it right. It's problem not opinion because it does create a problem with the real facts as we know them.
In the technical sense of accountancy. Assuming we're not talking about estimated downloads, which we always are in these cases, since there's no way to know how many downloads have occurred. So the BSA or the RIAA or what-have-you say "we estimate everyone on the planet downloaded our IP. Twice, thats 12 billion downloads at the full price of the product (which is whatever figure I pull out of my ass) which mean we have a real tangible loss of more money than there is on the planet". Meanwhile the apple seller says "unless I can find $100 to replace the stolen stock, I can't trade".
The definition of ring species [wikipedia.org] is based on the relationship between populations (subsets of the whole ring species). The size of those populations is not relevant.
The population is very relevant when someone attempts to ignore part of it in order to make a claim that is otherwise untrue.
No, part of the definition is that they "can interbreed with relatively closely related populations". If mini-Chihuahuas could not breed with any other dog, then they couldn't count toward dogs being a ring species.
And the size that is a result of human manipulation is the only thing distinguishing mini chihuahuas from the regular chihuahua as a breed of dog. From a taxonomy sense, they aren't even separate breeds. It's like calling humans a ring species because some people can't have children or chose to have children with only certain subsets of the species. It's bunk.
Again, "can interbreed" is part of the definition - if you can't breed at all you don't count one way or the other. The definitions of "species" (as opposed to "ring species") that are in general use much more complex, and most have rules accepting sterile members, etc.
Chihuahuas can interbreed with any other breed of dog. They are not a ring species unless you forget about parts of the same breed. And those limitations are only mechanical and related to our purposeful manipulation of part of the breed. It's not a ring species and certainly not a natural limitation.
My point was that they're "ignoring an almost unlimited number of other possibilities" with "no good reason to favor that choice over any other", not that they ignored "every other possibility". Doing a rain dance might work, but sacrificing a goat, praying to a god, holding a belching contest, and a vast number of other ways to try to make it rain have an equal amount of supporting evidence. So believing that the rain dance will work is an arbitrary choice that isn't backed up with any good reasoning.
Unless doing that rain dance helps the person reconcile how the other possibilities failed to work. Religion is philosophical after all. I already agreed that if they preyed or whatever as the only way, they are stupid. But I do not thinks that's the only thing someone would do as the concept I outlined showed.
Yes, you can both irrigate your fields and do a rain dance. That doesn't make the rain dance more rationally justified.
How ignorant of you. The rain dance doesn't need to be rationally justify, it's supposed to make you feel better about irrigating the fields. It's philosophical not scientific. I do not know why you have trouble understanding that. One prepares the field for nature to do it's work, the other prepares the mind to accept it. It's just like hope, those with no hope end up failing at things while those with hope seem to fair better off, if only in their own optimistic interpretations. It's mental health more or less and makes the mind able to process failures better.
True, there are many questions that science doesn't currently have and answer to, and there may be some that it can't ever answer. That doesn't mean that any answer at all becomes reasonable. When you don't know, the reasonable thing to do is to admit that you just don't know.
True, but at the same time, you do not know that a god did not invent or create the universe, you do not know that a different god then the ones already claiming to have been the creator did it, or if your big bang theory is true at all because of the conflicts within quantum mechanics and quantum physics as we observe things not behaving as expected with our regular physics. Now you can say you prefer this over that or this makes more sense because of that, but you cannot say that is false (opposite
Then you would be looking for the IQF type of jumbo shrimp. They are generally individually frozen on the boat and you can get frozen shrimp much fresher then that unless you are planning to eat underwater.
Illegal?, and congress being controlled by the democrats did not convene a independent investigation or bring charges against Bush because it was so illegal that he couldn't have been prosecuted?
Yea, and your calling me the liar. Well, as I said before, it if helps stop you from realizing how pitiful and pathetic your life is and hurting yourself, go right ahead.
Right, except for the history of the universe before man, the process by which most things were created, and a massive global event, there aren't many conflicts. Except for the existence of witches and sorcerers, the origin of language, the firmament
Right, and as we all know, science doesn't deal with anything other then that and no religious person has ever used anything science has created or paved the way for it to be created.
Do I need to use the end sarcasm tag there? If you would have done any investigation of your own, you would realize that language today is much broader then when the bible was written. Words were used with multiple meanings as well as generic descriptions. Take the word day for instance, it's origin is a transliteration of yowm (pronounced yome) which is a masculine noun meaning: day, time, year, period, or lifetime. It's dogma to claim the earth and all life were created in 6 days instead of 6 periods of time or whatever.
Of course the bible doesn't speak about the history of the universe outside of god being the creator and always has and will be so you can cross that off your list because even with god creating the universe- nothing in the scientific interpretation conflicts with the biblical interpretation because he could have created it the way science wants to explain it. Go back to the beginning of the big bangs and tell me, how did it happen, what was there that caused it and how did the energy become involved, and then after you have jumped around that, tell me where that crap came from. You see, even science ends up to a point in time where they just don't know and something magically happened or was just there. It's not a big jump from god created the universe to something created the universe.
As for the existence of witches and sorcerers, how do you know they never existed? I mean they wouldn't have to be the ball of fire throwing versions you see represented in movies. Modern witchcraft as practices by many people in free nations doesn't actually possess any magical power but instead relies on the ability of motivation and manipulation of people and events. In short, it's a con that produces results. Of course the bible spoke unfavorable of them and rulers outlawed the practice. I've often wondered if witched and sorcerers were so powerful, then why did they allow that to happen? The obvious answer is that they weren't the fabled waving their hand and turning someone into a frog, they were magicians doing con work.
Are you serious? Sure, almost anything is possible, but believing one particular action will be effective, while ignoring an almost unlimited number of other possibilities, knowing that there's no good reason to favor that choice over any other, is a bit odd. Also, even without a mechanism to connect the ritual with the rain, it's would be possible to show a correlation between the two, and that would count as evidence. But when you handle things that way, you're testing a hypothesis, not just believing because you want to believe.
Who said they ignored everything other possibility? Almost ever religious person (certainly jews and christians) believe the bible states that god will provide them with what they need. So if someone is praying for green grass and doing nothing else about it, they are stupid. However, if they are paying for green grass and are watering- feeding- grooming- de-thatching- aerating- it or any number of other things, I see no problem at all. The term god helps those who helps themselves, is not explicitly mentioned in the bible but it's a known concept that revolves around using what is availible to meet your needs. People have been doing that since the existence of time and it's an underlying concept in the will to understand the natural environment around us (IE science).
While the phrase was originally published on 1698 by Algernon Sydney in an article titled Discourses Concerning Government, it was populariz
Right, but paint wears out. So it's entirely natural to charge each time it gets repainted. Music - as idea or information - doesn't. So is it natural to try to pretend that it's a physical thing and impose an artificial scarcity on it, as if every time someone hears a song, a music pixie dies and must be replaced?
Well, paint get changed before it wears out most of the time. Either way, it's incorrect to state that it doesn't have royalties attached to it. Now as for being natural or not to charge for music, well, the laws of nations generally permit it and the people charging have a legal backing that existed probably longer then you have been alive. It would be natural- at least to you and everyone else because it was that way before you started thinking. If you want to change it, then speak with your legislators and stop attempting to make comparisons to me.
This is the fundamental problem: information replicates at zero cost, matter doesn't. Matter, it makes sense to swap for another piece of matter. Information.... doesn't. You can't 'swap' information, you can only copy it, and now you have two ideas where before you had one. But our economic system is built on swapping matter and therefore assumes that information must be a 'good' whose sale must be strictly regulated so that the music pixies don't burn out.
Well, not really. You see, copying information doesn't decrease it's value or worth unless it's copied and presented to someone who would otherwise pay for it. If I see a value in it and use it as an edge in my business practice, then I have no problem paying for it as the law allows. And yes, at least for your life time, our economy has included swapping information as a component of it's operation. Like I said before, petition your government but don't make silly comparisons about how information should be free because it costs nothing or how businesses do not pay painters as they will either ignore you and your logic or pass laws stopping you from having the ability to copy information.
But there are no music pixes and never were. There is a need to fund the creation of NEW information - but there's no need to keep funding the replication old information. It does that part by itself. So make that work FOR us, not against us.
So what are you arguing here- abolition of copyright or a reduction in it's terms? And how would it continue to do that part by itself if you got your way?
If a business (certain ones) uses it to their advantage, the law says they owe. It's the law you want to change, not me following it.
It was all for political purposes by all the administrations.
Keep saying whatever it is you need to say in order to justify your idology and feel better about yourself. We went over this before and as I said, I will be there for you.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, it does matter what the attacked party believes. If I arguing or chastising you and threaten to shoot you with a redeemer or bioriffle, no one would ever take the threat seriously regardless of what I thought about their real life existence.
Here is the problem with insults as you minimized the situation to. Ever heard the old adage about sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me? There is truth in that because unless you believe in what is being said, you have to actually allow it to hurt you. It's like racial name calling, If someone calls me a cracker, I laugh because it's not a very good insult to me. It's actually kind of funny to tell you the truth. I know their intent was to insult me or something, but it only works if I let it. It's like the N-word, I find it ridiculous that anyone would let someone else have that much control over them by taking personal offense over word being spoken. In fact, most of the people who use the word would drop it if it didn't have the effect it has because the intent of using it is generally to be rude or insult someone.
Now it might be a different story if someone was calling me a cracker while attacking me, or calling a black man a nigger while attacking them, but just saying it requires nothing of you to participate in it unless you willingly fall down to their levels.
I mean fuck, we aren't in third grade anymore. Does someone attempting to insult you with things you do not believe in or subscribe to really effect a person? I mean if I tell you to go to imagination land, or if you don't do something you will be beaten with a wet noodle, are you somehow offended now? Adults should act like adults and not be concerned with idiots who believe in unprovable things you do not.
Whistle Blower protections only apply when the actor it revealing something the government did illegally or immorally. I fail to see how that would apply to someone callously revealing secrets.
You do not know it wasn't sensitive at the time. In fact, if there were planned multiple attacks, the very information could have allowed an attacker to make adjustments to their plans without being detected.
Suppose for one instance that instead of being one foiled attack, there was plans for 20 bombings in this same fashion within hours or days of each other. In the hours or days right after the attacks, knowing of these security changes could be all that is needed to implement the same attack an hour and 5 minutes before the plane reaches it's destination. But without the information, the attack would proceed as planed and then the restrictions would have either forced the plan to be aborted or force the attacker to disobey one of the rules in which case appropriate actions could have been taken to prevent the completion of the bombing.
One of the problems I think you are missing is that you seem to be looking at what did happen, not what could have happened. After the fact, it's easy to miss the benefits of the restrictions that were present at the time of the restrictions. Had there been multiple attacks, the restrictions would have presented problems to the attackers that could have been detected and foiled because of the restrictions which were not known at the time. There wasn't multiple attacks so this point eludes a lot of people and they do not see the seriousness of making something secret known before it should have been. Sure, ten days later, it's pointless to keep it a secret, but when the fear is similar attacks that day or the next, secrecy could be key to defeating them.
As someone already pointed out that the missing point is someone who swore to keep it a secrete purposely failed in doing so, I think the point of keeping it a secrete for as long as possible does carry some weight.
It's more along the lines of what we didn't know and how someone would react. At the time, we didn't know if the failed bombing attempt was a single actions or a connected plan to hit several sites like with the 9/11 attacks. Keeping this secrete until the last minutes of the flights can alert air marshals or trained TSA agents on the flights to flustered passengers who refused to cooperate or follow the rules. As for the no one will be leaving their seats the last hour of the flight, that can be explained without informing people of the real purpose of it or signaling it's for the entire last hour of the flight. A simple announcement of " we are expecting to be entering some turbulent areas ahead and the fasten seat belts sign will be on for a period of time, anyone needing to use the facilities should do so now". Combine these restrictions with the no communications (so other terrorist can't warn others of their experience) and the nothing on your lap so as your actions can be observed, and you have what was needed to detect a future bombing.
Thankfully, this guy was acting alone and there wasn't more attacks in progress. But these rules and keeping them secrete for as long as possible would provide as much potential warning as well as detection if another attacker was attempting to do the same things. Ideally, if the attacker could have blown the plane up over the runway, he would have brought the holiday travel to a stand still if not hitting part of the terminal and causing mass casualties. I think something along those lines was the plan of attack. The problem with spelling these things out before we knew the threats were over is that it allows attackers at a time we knew we needed to be cautious to employ the techniques you describe and "he puts his plan into motion with an hour and five minutes to go." But if they remained secrete, we had an ace up our sleeve because they would have had to disobey one of the rules in order to put their plan into effect and we stood a chance of detecting them.
Remember, it's not as much about what we know now as it is what we knew then. At the time, we had a foiled bombing attempt on a busy holiday season, we didn't know if it was an isolated act or not, and the best chances of foiling more attacks of this nature was to create a situation where the attacker needed to be obvious when implementing his attack.
A fine explanation of a representative democracy. But the break down is with political parties and party line votes. This can defeat the promise of fairness or the differences of minority verses majority.
I think the founding fathers in the US understood these hazards which is why they insisted on the constitution proscribing what the federal government could do instead of only what it couldn't do. If the federal government was limited to it's constitutional role, what would be left is states who could be corrupted into party line majorities which would still leave a minority rule when weighed against the other states.
I'm not for removing political parties, but I am for limiting government to it's constitutional roles whether it's the state or federal constitutions. If a current federal law or program is so important, then all states would implement it on their own without the federal support. They would probably run them better too. This is because the needs of someone on the east coast isn't always the same as on the west coast and having the flexibility to cater to the citizens of a state based on their own needs or desires would better serve those citizens then a blanket coverage for all states imposed by the federal government.
As for the "no modern country in the world with reasonable resources has lost to a land invasion since 1945" is sort of an oxymoron. I mean that with the utmost respect too.
You see, after 1945, NATO was created to guarantee that most modern countries would never be left defending on their own. When Russia invaded Georgia, the US Non-violently interjected as Georgia was a newly created NATO country.
Anyways, after WWII, the US took on a role of increasing their military size in an attempt to convey a message of strength to the broken down European nations which needed to focus a lot on rebuilding. We haven't really removed ourselves from that mindset but we do share military technology with our European counter parts and it's pretty much a mutual agreement. As we all know, WWII started because of the ineffectiveness of the league of nations and all countries, including the US, being unwilling to enforce it's decree and stop Germany from violating the treaty of Versailles. We all sat back and refuse our earlier obligations to defend European countries from attack too. The new mentality is based more on not letting that happen again, the US took it more seriously then most of Europe, but that was the plan- to help Europe rebuild.
I'm not sure it's so hilarious.
Once you get past the notion that the government is worthless and incompetent, you can see how the new rules while overly drastic do have some applicable scenarios.
The no items and hands in plain sight the last hour of the flight is more or less because this person attempted to finish the assembly and detonation of a bomb at the last minute. His destination was a crowded city which means mass casualties almost anywhere the plane crashed if the pilots lost control. This is especially true in the terminals at the airport if he detonated on landing and the plane crashed into all the holiday travelers.
No going to the toilet in the last hour also helps avoid this scenario from happening behind closed doors.
The no announcing major cities or land marks isn't for timing, it is more so they can't just pick an alternative once they know about the last hour restrictions. Suppose there was a sleeper on the plane who saw the attempt get foiled. He could have phoned someone else who has an option of taking their chances or picking an alternative target and hope for lots of destruction. Someone on another flight could have been foiled in the new rules causing someone to alert others attempting to do the same.
Now I will agree that long term, these restrictions seem stupid and ineffective. But in an effort to limit damages from a coordinated attack, they seem pretty reasonable. Air marshals on the planes could look and potentially spot someone disobeying the new rules and possible stop any similar attack in much the same way as the original attacker was foiled. When this happened, we really didn't know if more people were planning on doing the same or how limited something like this would be. It's especially troubling when they learned this guy was on a terrorist watch list, the FBI lost track of his movements, and reportedly, his own father went to the US embassy and complained his son was taking some radical views and feared he was going to attack the US. I'm sure the FAA and government officials knew about this shit long before the public did.
In most "at will" states, the reasons for discharge also become a major factor in how the unemployment compensation if any will be paid. Also, there is a reputation thing that comes along to some of the more senior staff members where a firing can severely damage the ability for a rehire. Some jobs are only available to people with good job records and a firing like that could really screw someone unjustly.
So even though it would be meaningless in keeping your job, there may still be recourse available if not just qualifying for unemployment compensation. In my state, the employer has to kick in a portion of the unemployment compensation and they also pay premiums to the state which can go up if too many unjustified dismissals happen. Sadly, they do not consider temporary layoffs when the worker never gets called back as a dismissal. This makes is easy for companies to clean house by laying off a bunch of workers and only calling back the ones they want for whatever reason without any retribution.
In most states that I am aware of, "at will" means any reason but there are safeguards in place to help employees for bad reasons. How this effects the company sort of varies.
True, and in most states, the background check isn't a requirement for legitimate private sales either. However, I do know of a person with a Federal firearms license who attempted to get around the background checks with one customer and it blew up in his face.
Not to mention this is why taxing corporations is a bad thing. They will A: look to be obligated with the least taxes and rightfully so, and B: just pass the costs onto the consumer who actually pays the taxes.
As for using the courts in Washington state, The owner and founder of MS is a legal resident of Washington as long as MS being located there and employing a crap load of other people who for all intents and purposes are Washington state citizens paying taxes and they deserve the legal protection of the state regardless of how much money he or his companies or any of the employees make somewhere else. This is not to mention that the losers of lawsuits generally pay courts costs so it isn't really like the state is out of much in the end anyways.
Evangelical atheist or evangelical Christians. Both are known to exist and I would say the first clearly is worse then the later. At least with evangelical Christians, they believe they are doing you good. With evangelical atheist, they are just trying to troll and be an ass.
Nah, they can use an laparoscope or something similar to place the sensors inside the vaginal womb and image though the placenta more directly. If they can't do it now, that's the next logical approach. Anyways, it will likely be used on artificial inseminated eggs first so there wouldn't be any need for a host carrier outside of removing a few eggs to get the anti abortion images.
He's probably going to need to buy an entirely new machine in order to save any money.
He estimates that he thinks he might be able to save $70 a year so a new Mac Mini will cost him between $500-$600. That's going to mean somewhere between 7 to 9 years for repayment from savings. If he gets a used one, then he might trim that down quite a bit but I think his objection isn't to spending money now, but potentially having to spend money in the future when it may not be as readily availible.
What ever he gets, he runs the potential problem of it not lasting as long as his financial crunch might run. Getting a new machine now would take a lot of the risks out of that secenario. It would suck in the attempt to save $70 a year, if he spends $300 (a little over 4 years to break even) on something used and lasted only 2 years when his fear of the recession hitting home actually comes true.
I agree with your suggestion on the Acer Revo. I would recommend an eSATA raid enclosure running a mirror though of at least two drives and possibly a spare single drive enclosure (about $20) so if a drive goes bad when the recession hits home, the remaining drive could be placed in the enclosure alone and you wouldn't have to worry about powering the raid board and back plane.
The only reason we got into the details of it was because you were claiming it was a legitimate example and I claimed it was bunk using unsupported assumptions (like only a portion of the breed). Now, I'm not going to disagree with Evolution being a well supported science, I am disagreeing with most of the claims of observed speciation and how they rely on incomplete knowledge, semantics, and altering definitions that appear completely silly when applied otherwise outside of the supposed speciation event.
I do not think anyone disputed the adaptation for survival parts of evolutionary theory, but it has become very much a bunch of smoke and mirrors to almost a religious conviction for some to prove evolution and speciation as a fact.
I do not think you could be more wrong. As I previously explained, you had entire populations who wouldn't believe in the power of a god or supposed god when fractions of the same populations staked their lives on it. Why is it impossible to believe that someone wouldn't have seen it as a con before science exists? Did they not possess their own logic capabilities? I mean we were counting and doing math long before science existed so we know there was a sense of order and absolutes.
Actually logic is the very defining mark of my point. It goes back to before and after the fact just like I previously said. It's a matter of A, B, C, and you are attempting to claim A,C,B or C,B,A. You even demonstrate this later in your reply. And no, I didn't contradict myself about legal status and moral status from the law, if you are moral, you are lawful until the law doesn't allow you to remain moral. At that point, you can take actions to remain moral which might violate the law or might not. As I said before, it has nothing to do with the law but your actions in regard to the law.
I can see how you might think that when your basis for reality seems to be a bunch of what ifs and propbablys based on a course of action that has never taken place. However, to the vast majority of people, they wait to observe the facts and rely on the empirical evidence at hand.
Nothing is in conflict or contradiction there. It goes back to your inability to follow logic and insisting on putting C before A or B when everyone else in the world knows that it's A,B,C. To be moral, you have to be lawful until the law makes you immoral then it's your actions that dictate whether you remain moral or not. It's not a difficult concept.
Your right that I would be making an uninformed opinion but your wrong that the opinion couldn't be made. To be moral, you will have to be lawful and play by the same rules that bind everyone else until the law jeopardizes your morality. It's then your actions which will dictate whether you remain moral or not so by violating the law, I can assume your not moral until it's demonstrated that the violation made you retain your morality. If you do not justify those actions or they aren't obvious, I will be making an uninformed assumption but it's there to make.
Yes, you can make assu
But what you do not seem to be understanding is that my physical property rights can still prevent you from pointing the replicator at my basketball in the first place. I can create an electronic shield that prevents it from being copied or simply not take the ball to where you can copy it.
So while you might be able to unobtrusively copy something, it doesn't mean that you actually can or that I lose all rights so you can.
As for something already in the public, well, then you would be copying someone else' property and not mine. You might have something similar or exactly the same but it isn't mine and you still had to get permission somewhere to copy it. This permission would come in the form of getting the device whatever it is, to a place in which you could copy it. That could be by you purchasing it yourself or by someone who has allowing access to it. So again, even though it's easy for you to copy it, it doesn't mean you can or that you have the right to do so with only physical property rights being involved.
The problem is that it's completely relevant. IF you take otherwise identical things and segregate them only because of size, you reaching for your fucking point and spouting nothing but bunk. If that's what you think science is and proof of evolution should be, then your stupid and treating it like a religion.
Actually, philosophy is very much about "feel good". Not only is it about figuring things out, it's about being happy and so on to. It goes with the mental health of a person and the state of mind and as a matter of fact, there is even a branch of philosophy that deals specifically with religion so there is absolutely not separation between then as you cluelessly attempt to posit.
Yea, that was my point of comparing it to your analogy.
Sure they would. You don't think there wasn't skeptics in biblical times? I mean hell, people openly defied a god who supposedly had the ability to destroy entire towns and make small armies more powerful then the largest armies in the lands. You have people in the middle ages that refuted magic and burned witches and sorcerers at the stake. And this is back when science was little more then finding the right spells and elements to turn lead into gold.
You mean will I throw out logic and reality so you can inject a hypothetical that not only hasn't happened in real life, but there is no way to quantify it's actual implementation in order for you to claim I'm wrong? No I won't. Anyways, my argument allows for history to be different as your hypothetical suggests. The problem is that history is not different and therefore it's accurate to measure the current loss by the number of unauthorized uses. You can kill the baby and claim he would have grown up to be a doctor who could have saved himself, however that ignores the fact that never happened and will not happen because the act is already done. You seem to be wanting to forget that the act has already been done and concentrate on the if you didn't kill the baby. If you could go back in time and make things different, they would be, however, you can't and they aren't so treating it like it already happened when it did is fair and proper.
I have been arguing the morality of the actions directly. You need to be lawful to be moral unless there is a conflict. In other words, you have to set out playing by the same rules as everyone else in bound by until it becomes somehow unconscionable. At that point, you have to justify at least to yourself why not following the law or actually violating it would be moral. And yes, with copyright, there are two options to not following the law, one of which doesn't cross a moral line. If you find copyright to be wrong, you can simply not participate in it (ie, don't use the programs, don't buy the crap being pushed and so on) without ever coming into a morality quagmire. The other option is to take the product and use it without compensation as the law allows. In that case, you have to justify at least to yourself why that is more moral. One such justification might be passing out copies of CPR and EMT training materials to workers at a Free Clinic in unstable areas where the reference material could mean the difference between life and death. What I would consider an immoral justification would be that you don't like copyright so instead of not participating, you feel you have some right to just take the sweat and labor of others without payment.
And the point here is what? WE already know it's a hypothetical that is outside the scope of following the law is a moral obligation until the law comes into a conflict with morality. Being a lawless bunch and taking the advantage of not following the rules that others are bind to is not moral in any sense.
No, I got it right. It's problem not opinion because it does create a problem with the real facts as we know them.
It's actually mor
The population is very relevant when someone attempts to ignore part of it in order to make a claim that is otherwise untrue.
And the size that is a result of human manipulation is the only thing distinguishing mini chihuahuas from the regular chihuahua as a breed of dog. From a taxonomy sense, they aren't even separate breeds. It's like calling humans a ring species because some people can't have children or chose to have children with only certain subsets of the species. It's bunk.
Chihuahuas can interbreed with any other breed of dog. They are not a ring species unless you forget about parts of the same breed. And those limitations are only mechanical and related to our purposeful manipulation of part of the breed. It's not a ring species and certainly not a natural limitation.
Unless doing that rain dance helps the person reconcile how the other possibilities failed to work. Religion is philosophical after all. I already agreed that if they preyed or whatever as the only way, they are stupid. But I do not thinks that's the only thing someone would do as the concept I outlined showed.
How ignorant of you. The rain dance doesn't need to be rationally justify, it's supposed to make you feel better about irrigating the fields. It's philosophical not scientific. I do not know why you have trouble understanding that. One prepares the field for nature to do it's work, the other prepares the mind to accept it. It's just like hope, those with no hope end up failing at things while those with hope seem to fair better off, if only in their own optimistic interpretations. It's mental health more or less and makes the mind able to process failures better.
True, but at the same time, you do not know that a god did not invent or create the universe, you do not know that a different god then the ones already claiming to have been the creator did it, or if your big bang theory is true at all because of the conflicts within quantum mechanics and quantum physics as we observe things not behaving as expected with our regular physics. Now you can say you prefer this over that or this makes more sense because of that, but you cannot say that is false (opposite
Then you would be looking for the IQF type of jumbo shrimp. They are generally individually frozen on the boat and you can get frozen shrimp much fresher then that unless you are planning to eat underwater.
Illegal?, and congress being controlled by the democrats did not convene a independent investigation or bring charges against Bush because it was so illegal that he couldn't have been prosecuted?
Yea, and your calling me the liar. Well, as I said before, it if helps stop you from realizing how pitiful and pathetic your life is and hurting yourself, go right ahead.
Right, and as we all know, science doesn't deal with anything other then that and no religious person has ever used anything science has created or paved the way for it to be created.
Do I need to use the end sarcasm tag there? If you would have done any investigation of your own, you would realize that language today is much broader then when the bible was written. Words were used with multiple meanings as well as generic descriptions. Take the word day for instance, it's origin is a transliteration of yowm (pronounced yome) which is a masculine noun meaning: day, time, year, period, or lifetime. It's dogma to claim the earth and all life were created in 6 days instead of 6 periods of time or whatever.
Of course the bible doesn't speak about the history of the universe outside of god being the creator and always has and will be so you can cross that off your list because even with god creating the universe- nothing in the scientific interpretation conflicts with the biblical interpretation because he could have created it the way science wants to explain it. Go back to the beginning of the big bangs and tell me, how did it happen, what was there that caused it and how did the energy become involved, and then after you have jumped around that, tell me where that crap came from. You see, even science ends up to a point in time where they just don't know and something magically happened or was just there. It's not a big jump from god created the universe to something created the universe.
As for the existence of witches and sorcerers, how do you know they never existed? I mean they wouldn't have to be the ball of fire throwing versions you see represented in movies. Modern witchcraft as practices by many people in free nations doesn't actually possess any magical power but instead relies on the ability of motivation and manipulation of people and events. In short, it's a con that produces results. Of course the bible spoke unfavorable of them and rulers outlawed the practice. I've often wondered if witched and sorcerers were so powerful, then why did they allow that to happen? The obvious answer is that they weren't the fabled waving their hand and turning someone into a frog, they were magicians doing con work.
Who said they ignored everything other possibility? Almost ever religious person (certainly jews and christians) believe the bible states that god will provide them with what they need. So if someone is praying for green grass and doing nothing else about it, they are stupid. However, if they are paying for green grass and are watering- feeding- grooming- de-thatching- aerating- it or any number of other things, I see no problem at all. The term god helps those who helps themselves, is not explicitly mentioned in the bible but it's a known concept that revolves around using what is availible to meet your needs. People have been doing that since the existence of time and it's an underlying concept in the will to understand the natural environment around us (IE science).
While the phrase was originally published on 1698 by Algernon Sydney in an article titled Discourses Concerning Government, it was populariz
Well, paint get changed before it wears out most of the time. Either way, it's incorrect to state that it doesn't have royalties attached to it. Now as for being natural or not to charge for music, well, the laws of nations generally permit it and the people charging have a legal backing that existed probably longer then you have been alive. It would be natural- at least to you and everyone else because it was that way before you started thinking. If you want to change it, then speak with your legislators and stop attempting to make comparisons to me.
Well, not really. You see, copying information doesn't decrease it's value or worth unless it's copied and presented to someone who would otherwise pay for it. If I see a value in it and use it as an edge in my business practice, then I have no problem paying for it as the law allows. And yes, at least for your life time, our economy has included swapping information as a component of it's operation. Like I said before, petition your government but don't make silly comparisons about how information should be free because it costs nothing or how businesses do not pay painters as they will either ignore you and your logic or pass laws stopping you from having the ability to copy information.
So what are you arguing here- abolition of copyright or a reduction in it's terms? And how would it continue to do that part by itself if you got your way?
If a business (certain ones) uses it to their advantage, the law says they owe. It's the law you want to change, not me following it.
Right, except that contracts have been around long before guns, probably to the point where sticks and stones were the weapons of choice.
It was all for political purposes by all the administrations.
Keep saying whatever it is you need to say in order to justify your idology and feel better about yourself. We went over this before and as I said, I will be there for you.