Nobody is actually in shape for the kind of physical stress that combat puts on a person, you simply put out all you have and hope its enough.
If that's true, then it shouldn't matter if you have men or women doing the job. Especially given that you CAN increase stength (women already have better endurance). Is it not possible for women to lift weights and build muscle?
Seems like a legal case to me. What legal right gives one citizen the ability to take property from another citizen, because they disagree with the view?
Your analogy tweak is good. Here's the really compelling point: it doesn't matter if he's using the bikes at all, they are still his property, and you're still stealing it if using it without permission. At least that's my take.
There's a few points you're missing here. One is that people ASKED you to use the WiFi connection, not what the OP was talking about. The second is that you know the people using your WiFi (you typically know your guests). Again, not what the OP is talking about.
why should we assume the default state is "I don't want you using my WiFi"?
Why assume the default state is "I want you to use my WiFi?" Oh right, because you feel entitled. Why assume at all, why not just ask the owner? There's no excuse not to, unless you think the answer will always be "no." Its not like running a web server at all, its more like using a cordless phone. Just because you COULD access my base station and make calls doesn't mean its legal or right (note the law doesn't single out toll calls).
Besides that argument, there are other advantages to assuming it's open unless secured. You're less likely to be arrested just for hanging around somewhere with your laptop. We don't have to waste public funds arresting you unless the owner complains. And we all get more free WiFi.
You won't be arrested just for being in the area with a laptop. The owner would need to accuse you and show that you were using the AP. Quite being paranoid.
The intention of access point owner must be known to the user ahead of time. If the network is completely unsecured, it should be assumed that it's public access.
Hmm, lets try this:
The intention of [car] owner must be known to the user ahead of time. If the car is completely unsecured, it should be assumed that it's public access.
No, I don't think it works. You need EXPLICIT permission to use someone else's property (or in this case, network). If you're not paying for someones private property or service, you MUST get permission before using it.
This isn't a waterfountain out in the open; its more like a cordless phone being used on the sidewalk. That doesn't mean you're free to use the cordless phone to make calls.
Um, you don't think its possible to figure out the source of a signal? It is, and its how my wife got our neighbors to stop running a taxi business out of their home. It was interfering with her phones and cable tv.
Ok, I was a bit sloppy in my language. In both fields, one develops models based on underlying theories, plugs in the appropriate data and sees what the model predicts. Assuming both models are correct and complete, the failure of the statistical model to accurately predict a single occurrence is not necessarily a failure of the underlying theories; the failure of a valid scientific model to accurately predict a single occurrence does indicate a failure of the underlying theories. The difference being that complete and accurate scientific models, based on sound theories, predict what will happen every time the experiment is run. The same can not be said for statistical models. That is what I mean when I refer to scientific evidence as evidence, whereas statistical predictions, as you say, are merely useful guides. Both are a perfectly valid basis for forming opinions, decisions, what have you, but I do not see the two as equal. If you do, and accept statistical evidence as a basis for beliefs, then I guess we simply have different definitions of evidence and belief.
This is true; in this case though you have science saying a plane will fly, how sucessful we are is a matter of engineering (also science) and maintence. So both should and do play a part as evidence.
I never intended to imply that either one could be used to prove the existence of a god. Although, I do find it interesting that neither one can be used to disprove the existence of a god, either. And while one certainly should not believe everything that can not be disproven (that is a whole lot of double negatives!), I think it equally absurd to claim that one should (or even can) only believe that which can be empirically proven, which is how I interpreted your statement that you only believe in things for which you have evidence.
That may be true as well. This is where David Hume comes into play; what does believing in god do for us? Not much really. So according to his philosophy, we shouldn't bother with the notion of a god. One can empirically prove things using science and stats though, and personal expirience plays a part in rational belief as well.
Oh, BTW, I have indeed read Hume; as you noticed, his writing has influenced my thinking on the subject of rationality quite a bit. I also am particularly attracted to his political philosophy. I tend to find idealism of any sort dubious at best; his admittedly nebulous pragmatism at least avoids pushing my skepticism buttons.
I never really delved into his political phiolosphies, just his pragmatism in general.
So that makes them not crackpots? I seem to recall some pretty bloody wars fought by the Christians to "help others." And something in Spain...
Oh, and lets not forget that abject greed which caused a pope to declare priests must be abstain from sex... and shortly after priests began molesting children. The church continues this "tradition" today, even though it has been made aware of the problem many, many years ago.
All this in the name of some being that they cannot even offer one shred of scientific evidence to prove exists?
Now that I think about it, Christains are worse than Scientologists.
Celibacy was advocated from pretty early in the church's history. St. Augustine of Hippo (~400 AD) wrote that any lust in sex was bad, and that married sex was only not a sin if neither party enjoyed it, and it was strictly a mechanical act for the purposes of procreation.
hmm... ever really pay attention when reading the Psalms of David? Its actually pretty explicit.
At any rate, the OP is correct, and the celibacy rule for priests is what directly lead to priests going after young boys. There's a documentary on this somewhere.
Which proves what exactly? In 5000 years if Scientology is still around and its popularity continues to increase, how would it be any different than other mono or poly-theistic religion today?
The other poster would seem to be correct with regard to his comments on the Greeks.
The failing is that you'll never find a scientific theory that says a plane won't crash; science only goes as far as to explain why planes CAN work. The physics of keeping a plane in the air is sound, obviously. Statistical evidence isn't a 'theory,' it merely presents probabilities, which are a useful guide as well.
Neither of those kinds of evidence though will show that any kind of god exists.
Fine, sucker. The exact word didn't matter to my point. I also didn't use quotes for a reason, because I didn't remember the exact phrase. Sorry, not "case in point."
And that is why you called me one and belittled me? Because I had forced my Christian beliefs on you?
I assumed you a Christian because you seemed upset by my comments regarding them, yet had no problem (seemingly) with the earlier comments on Scientology, which takes as much (if not more) flack that Christianity. I was mistaken, and I appologize.
Do jews, muslims, buddhists and hindu also force their beliefs on you whether you want them or not?
No, nor are they the majority in the US. That doesn't mean I cannot point out why they are foolish beliefs to have. Many would say Scientologists are nuts, then go to church on sunday. The only difference seems to be how many members a religion has as to whether or not one supersticion is "valid" or not.
At any rate, my reasonable belief that my food is safe is backed up by evidence and personal experience. Food poisoning is very rare (well, in the US anyway) and statistically unlikely to happen to any given person. So while I have not inspected the exact dish I eat, I know the process which delivered the food to me is very unlikely to cause me to get sick or die. Even moreso when I cook my own food. Tampering typically leaves some trace which you can detect on the packaging.
The same can be said for all of your other examples. I know first hand that the likelihood of some catastrophy is small, and thus not something I should concern myself with. If planes WERE falling out of the sky every day, we'd hear about it. So there is evidence that my day to day beliefs are accurate. There's evidence to back them up.
I hope I explained how I have evidence to back up my belief that any given plane is safe to fly on, even though I've not personally inspected the plane myself.
Not really fair, as Scientology is really the corporate pinnacle of religions, where profit at the top is the sole motivation. So yeah, the leaders sharing the belief rather than just a flagrant exploitation of naive and vulnerable element of society does make a difference.
Well, having been raised Roman Catholic, I'm not sure I see a difference here. History has certainly shown that many leaders in the RC church were there for power and wealth, not because they really believed.
I'm pretty sure you assume that because you're a bigot.
As it turns out, I'm strictly an atheist. I'm just not so insecure in my beliefs that I need to lash out at everybody who isn't, or who I imagine isn't.
Says the poster that doesn't care about/.ers picking on Scientology.
If you detect some anger in my posts regarding Christians its not because of their beliefs per say, its because their beliefs are forced on me whether I want them to be or not and affect my day to day life. Last time I checked that wasn't bigotry.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't understand why anyone would "happily pay taxes" on anything.
So that would mean that countries would not allow citizens to travel to the island, or gamble online using one of their sites?
It doesn't sound like countries would do either of those things, and I doubt anyone would stop selling to Antigua, especially if the US stops.
Nobody is actually in shape for the kind of physical stress that combat puts on a person, you simply put out all you have and hope its enough.
If that's true, then it shouldn't matter if you have men or women doing the job. Especially given that you CAN increase stength (women already have better endurance). Is it not possible for women to lift weights and build muscle?
If he said mean or median would that make more sense?
Hmm, doesn't really matter what the President (then or now) thinks its illegal or not, it is.
Seems like a legal case to me. What legal right gives one citizen the ability to take property from another citizen, because they disagree with the view?
Why is stating the truth a stupid thing to do in this day and age? Do we hate honesty so much?
Your analogy tweak is good. Here's the really compelling point: it doesn't matter if he's using the bikes at all, they are still his property, and you're still stealing it if using it without permission. At least that's my take.
There's a few points you're missing here. One is that people ASKED you to use the WiFi connection, not what the OP was talking about. The second is that you know the people using your WiFi (you typically know your guests). Again, not what the OP is talking about.
Why assume the default state is "I want you to use my WiFi?" Oh right, because you feel entitled. Why assume at all, why not just ask the owner? There's no excuse not to, unless you think the answer will always be "no." Its not like running a web server at all, its more like using a cordless phone. Just because you COULD access my base station and make calls doesn't mean its legal or right (note the law doesn't single out toll calls).
You won't be arrested just for being in the area with a laptop. The owner would need to accuse you and show that you were using the AP. Quite being paranoid.
No, its not right on the money. You're using my bandwidth without my express permission. You're denying me full use of said bandwidth.
The intention of access point owner must be known to the user ahead of time. If the network is completely unsecured, it should be assumed that it's public access.
Hmm, lets try this:
The intention of [car] owner must be known to the user ahead of time. If the car is completely unsecured, it should be assumed that it's public access.
No, I don't think it works. You need EXPLICIT permission to use someone else's property (or in this case, network). If you're not paying for someones private property or service, you MUST get permission before using it.
This isn't a waterfountain out in the open; its more like a cordless phone being used on the sidewalk. That doesn't mean you're free to use the cordless phone to make calls.
Um, you don't think its possible to figure out the source of a signal? It is, and its how my wife got our neighbors to stop running a taxi business out of their home. It was interfering with her phones and cable tv.
Ok, I was a bit sloppy in my language. In both fields, one develops models based on underlying theories, plugs in the appropriate data and sees what the model predicts. Assuming both models are correct and complete, the failure of the statistical model to accurately predict a single occurrence is not necessarily a failure of the underlying theories; the failure of a valid scientific model to accurately predict a single occurrence does indicate a failure of the underlying theories. The difference being that complete and accurate scientific models, based on sound theories, predict what will happen every time the experiment is run. The same can not be said for statistical models. That is what I mean when I refer to scientific evidence as evidence, whereas statistical predictions, as you say, are merely useful guides. Both are a perfectly valid basis for forming opinions, decisions, what have you, but I do not see the two as equal. If you do, and accept statistical evidence as a basis for beliefs, then I guess we simply have different definitions of evidence and belief.
This is true; in this case though you have science saying a plane will fly, how sucessful we are is a matter of engineering (also science) and maintence. So both should and do play a part as evidence.
I never intended to imply that either one could be used to prove the existence of a god. Although, I do find it interesting that neither one can be used to disprove the existence of a god, either. And while one certainly should not believe everything that can not be disproven (that is a whole lot of double negatives!), I think it equally absurd to claim that one should (or even can) only believe that which can be empirically proven, which is how I interpreted your statement that you only believe in things for which you have evidence.
That may be true as well. This is where David Hume comes into play; what does believing in god do for us? Not much really. So according to his philosophy, we shouldn't bother with the notion of a god. One can empirically prove things using science and stats though, and personal expirience plays a part in rational belief as well.
Oh, BTW, I have indeed read Hume; as you noticed, his writing has influenced my thinking on the subject of rationality quite a bit. I also am particularly attracted to his political philosophy. I tend to find idealism of any sort dubious at best; his admittedly nebulous pragmatism at least avoids pushing my skepticism buttons.
I never really delved into his political phiolosphies, just his pragmatism in general.
So 40 out of hundreds? That doesn't sound like alot to me at all.
So that makes them not crackpots? I seem to recall some pretty bloody wars fought by the Christians to "help others." And something in Spain...
Oh, and lets not forget that abject greed which caused a pope to declare priests must be abstain from sex... and shortly after priests began molesting children. The church continues this "tradition" today, even though it has been made aware of the problem many, many years ago.
All this in the name of some being that they cannot even offer one shred of scientific evidence to prove exists?
Now that I think about it, Christains are worse than Scientologists.
Celibacy was advocated from pretty early in the church's history. St. Augustine of Hippo (~400 AD) wrote that any lust in sex was bad, and that married sex was only not a sin if neither party enjoyed it, and it was strictly a mechanical act for the purposes of procreation.
hmm... ever really pay attention when reading the Psalms of David? Its actually pretty explicit.
At any rate, the OP is correct, and the celibacy rule for priests is what directly lead to priests going after young boys. There's a documentary on this somewhere.
Which proves what exactly? In 5000 years if Scientology is still around and its popularity continues to increase, how would it be any different than other mono or poly-theistic religion today?
The other poster would seem to be correct with regard to his comments on the Greeks.
The failing is that you'll never find a scientific theory that says a plane won't crash; science only goes as far as to explain why planes CAN work. The physics of keeping a plane in the air is sound, obviously. Statistical evidence isn't a 'theory,' it merely presents probabilities, which are a useful guide as well.
Neither of those kinds of evidence though will show that any kind of god exists.
Fine, sucker. The exact word didn't matter to my point. I also didn't use quotes for a reason, because I didn't remember the exact phrase. Sorry, not "case in point."
And that is why you called me one and belittled me? Because I had forced my Christian beliefs on you?
I assumed you a Christian because you seemed upset by my comments regarding them, yet had no problem (seemingly) with the earlier comments on Scientology, which takes as much (if not more) flack that Christianity. I was mistaken, and I appologize.
Do jews, muslims, buddhists and hindu also force their beliefs on you whether you want them or not?
No, nor are they the majority in the US. That doesn't mean I cannot point out why they are foolish beliefs to have. Many would say Scientologists are nuts, then go to church on sunday. The only difference seems to be how many members a religion has as to whether or not one supersticion is "valid" or not.
Are you familar with David Hume by any chance?
At any rate, my reasonable belief that my food is safe is backed up by evidence and personal experience. Food poisoning is very rare (well, in the US anyway) and statistically unlikely to happen to any given person. So while I have not inspected the exact dish I eat, I know the process which delivered the food to me is very unlikely to cause me to get sick or die. Even moreso when I cook my own food. Tampering typically leaves some trace which you can detect on the packaging.
The same can be said for all of your other examples. I know first hand that the likelihood of some catastrophy is small, and thus not something I should concern myself with. If planes WERE falling out of the sky every day, we'd hear about it. So there is evidence that my day to day beliefs are accurate. There's evidence to back them up.
I hope I explained how I have evidence to back up my belief that any given plane is safe to fly on, even though I've not personally inspected the plane myself.
Could this be the beginnings of the T-virus? hmm..
Not really fair, as Scientology is really the corporate pinnacle of religions, where profit at the top is the sole motivation. So yeah, the leaders sharing the belief rather than just a flagrant exploitation of naive and vulnerable element of society does make a difference.
Well, having been raised Roman Catholic, I'm not sure I see a difference here. History has certainly shown that many leaders in the RC church were there for power and wealth, not because they really believed.
Says the poster that doesn't care about
If you detect some anger in my posts regarding Christians its not because of their beliefs per say, its because their beliefs are forced on me whether I want them to be or not and affect my day to day life. Last time I checked that wasn't bigotry.