And it would also work with solar, wind, geothermal, and whatever other source of energy people like to call renewable. (Not necessarily with the same efficiency)
By that metric, wouldn't it be correct to say that stone age people worked 0% of their time? After all, it's just hunting and gathering and they never have to go to work. Otherwise, you must also include the time we spend cooking, shopping, and doing various chores, none of which ends at retirement.
Maybe you should call your representatives and ask them to make a law against forcing someone to have an abortion when they don't want one. I'm just saying that, cause you are acting like such a law is necessary. Personally, I thought that was already illegal.
PS: You also need to stop living under a rock, pro-abortion people don't exist. There's a world of difference between being in favor of legalization of something, than of being in favor of the thing itself. I assume you're a pro-picking-your-nose person because you don't think picking your nose should be illegal?
I doubt there's any law against asking someone for money in exchange for a license to use copyrighted material. Nor is there any law against using copyrighted material without paying under the fair use exemption. You could pay money to use material even if you think it is covered under fair use, if you feel like it, but you don't need to.
There's no law that says people holding copyrights have to give you the capability to copy-paste the material. I know, cause one time I tried to sue someone because I couldn't copy-paste their print book. If you don't like it, type a copy, or copy-paste it after disabling Javascript, or blocking the ***holes at icopyright.net via adblocker or hosts file.
I WISH people could be arrested for filing a false report. Remember, the whole problem is that there are no penalties for filing false reports, but there is a penalty for not taking the site down immediately.
I won't be paying for cable TV, nor will any of my brothers. If the cable companies don't adapt and fast, they will die out with our parent generation. It's not so much that they're using the wrong technology, but rather that a similar but cheaper option is available. Internet can just as easily do phone, radio, and TV as well generic data. Adapt or die, content providers.
Well one of its isotopes seems to have a longer half-life than my ping time, I guess that makes it stable! They can even make more than one atom per month!
Actually, the very first job of immune cells is to recognize self. After they can recognize self, then they go on to attack non-self. If the immune system were to attack self, you get various autoimmune diseases ranging from diabetes to arthritis. So what I wonder about these, given that they grow in a lab and never recognize you, is whether they will tag our own cells?
And, as a good prof you should consider if your attitude is causing some people to skip your lectures, and then fail. Especially if what you teach is different than the text.
I take notes in CS class as well. Only I take very few notes in that sort of class. I like to have a word-for-word of certain algorithms or formulas that may be talked about.
1. Freedom is your right to act as you choose so long as your actions do not harm others
No, Freedom is your right to act as you choose, without retaliation. Other people's freedom is their right not to be harmed in certain ways by your actions.
You might argue that lack of privacy can limit choices by the threat of embarrassment, but freedom does not preclude embarrassing actions from your choice set. In other words, freedom does not require your choices to be easy and embarrassment-free, just possible. This is not to say that privacy isn't a right worth fighting for. But I don't think we should use the right to freedom to justify the right to privacy.
Go live in a dictatorship for a while, and you will realize that while you might be "free" to do something, that doesn't mean that the government won't haul your ass in jail (or execute you) the next day if they found out about it. Much like in America you're "free" to break the speed limit, fuck a cow, copy music, smoke pot, or shoot off fireworks so long as the government doesn't find out you did it. If there is significant chance that your actions will be retaliated against, you're not really free to do them, even if you are physically capable to do so. It is for this reason that freedom requires privacy; if people take offense at your actions and retaliate, you are not really free to do them. You could argue that indifference on the part of everyone could substitute for privacy, but that will never happen. Inasmuch as people don't retaliate for things they don't know, privacy guarantees freedom.
Unfortunately, the sheeple won't realize that if you don't do anything wrong, you still might have something to hide (because illegal things aren't always wrong, and embarrassing things aren't always wrong), especially if the government should ever turn against its people.
My parents did the get out of the car and walk thing (not necessarily all the way home) whenever me or my two brothers were too troublesome in the car. Often just a few blocks, and she'd follow in the car to pick us up when we calmed down a bit.
Now I usually go for a walk when I'm feeling frustrated or angry. Better than the other "solutions" for that.
I agree, and have changed my sig accordingly. If they can call it a PATRIOT Act or "Cute Furry Kitten Act", it is time we start doing the same right back at them, until people learn that thy can't judge something by its name or, even better, pull out the pichforks and torches and demand a return to proper naming conventions.
You fail to account for human stupidity and laziness. And shoplifters are plenty stupid IMO, very bad risk/payoff there, and too lazy to get a job. I'm pretty sure the chip requires some equipment to deactivate. Would you buy something so you can deactivate chips on the DVD's you stole?
Indeed, that was my first thought. I'm glad to see that they are doing something positive for a change. And yes, it should lower the markup on the DVD's because they don't need to recoup their (real world physical) losses due to theft. I just hope that they haven't added something sneaky in there too.
If the IT products we purchased were secure out of the box, we wouldn't have to spend billions every year making them secure."
If people didn't make mistakes, we would not neet policemen, most firemen, lawyers, judges, parents, or teachers. But they do, and will continue to, make mistakes.
Almost, but nope. The only way the distributors can force the retailers into anything is through agreements - ones the retailers enter into through their own volition.
That's a nice business you have there. It would be a shame if anything were to happen to it... If you give us some money, we could "protect" it for you.
A real libertarian should be for all of this, though - it's all voluntary agreements, by informed parties.
What about agreements that have some coercion (legal or otherwise) in them?
I want a clear quote that mentions genetic engineering specifically, not just your interpretation of some obscure passage.
Obviously, that would have been hard as there was no genetic engineering back then. And if you try to cover every special case, you will get something that looks like the current law system (try putting that on stone tablets). Someone mentioned that God created the animals to reproduce "after their kind" but it doesn't say we are not to interfere. Presumably sheep are not created in God's image, but what about these? (And how much in God's image are we anyhow? Carefully read about the effects of eating the forbidden fruit, very interesting.)
A different aspect, which will need to be dealt with regardless of christianity, is what status these chimeras have. Are they a human that is 85% sheep? Do they have any rights? (their purpose in life is to die so that you may have life, pun intended). What about when someone inevitably makes something with more than 50% human cells? If something is genetically human but developed as a sheep would, are they human? Are we allowed to eat them? (very bad idea). What if one of the egg cells is a human egg (or sperm)?
I mean, seriously, where do you so-called Christians get off making shit up and then claiming, "God said so?"
That's a tradition taken from ancient Israel:-) Jesus was not pleased. "You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men." Mark 7:8
Assuming you are Christian, didn't God say to dominate nature for our own purposes, putting fear and terror into the hearts of all animals? Heck, that's pretty much license to do whatever we want to nature, don't you think?
God said he would put the fear of man in the wild animals. But I hate the morons who say that just because we are supposed to dominate/subdue/rule over nature, that means that we should destroy it. How are you going to rule over it when it is destroyed?
-- In summary, chimeras are a very very dangerous idea from a moral standpoint, and are also likely to result in disease that once affected sheep now affecting both sheep and people.
The silliest arguments I have been reading are things like "Viacom benefits from YouTube, therefore Google isn't doing anything wrong" and "the copyright holders can request to have the stuff removed, so what's the big deal?"
Because part of the fair use guidelines include how the derivative work affects the work in question.
And because of the structure of the DMCA and because Google is not posting the content themselves, so long as they take down content within the legal limits when given an "opt-out" (takedown request) they are free of responsibility.
1. The universe popped into existence from nothing, or
2. A complex, intelligent, powerful creature (presumably with a beard) popped into existence from nothing, then one day decided to create the universe from nothing.
Or 3. A complex, intelligent, powerful creature has always existed, then one day decided to create the universe from nothing. Look! Things that are not effects do not require causes.
To all those of you saying that cybersquatting is simply the result of the free market, well you are wrong. It is the result of improper pricing for domains in the first place. All short or word-like domains should have been priced higher. When prices are too low, a shortage will result -- as it has.
Also, Microsoft has a legitimate interest is removing cybersquatters, as do we all, because quite a few of these (appart from other issues) are phishing or pushing crapware (or just advertizing, but that is acceptable in my book). Also, holding domains captive results in crappier names for everyone, which is a bad thing.
Slashdot Mirror
And it would also work with solar, wind, geothermal, and whatever other source of energy people like to call renewable. (Not necessarily with the same efficiency)
By that metric, wouldn't it be correct to say that stone age people worked 0% of their time? After all, it's just hunting and gathering and they never have to go to work. Otherwise, you must also include the time we spend cooking, shopping, and doing various chores, none of which ends at retirement.
Maybe you should call your representatives and ask them to make a law against forcing someone to have an abortion when they don't want one. I'm just saying that, cause you are acting like such a law is necessary. Personally, I thought that was already illegal.
PS: You also need to stop living under a rock, pro-abortion people don't exist. There's a world of difference between being in favor of legalization of something, than of being in favor of the thing itself. I assume you're a pro-picking-your-nose person because you don't think picking your nose should be illegal?
I doubt there's any law against asking someone for money in exchange for a license to use copyrighted material. Nor is there any law against using copyrighted material without paying under the fair use exemption. You could pay money to use material even if you think it is covered under fair use, if you feel like it, but you don't need to.
There's no law that says people holding copyrights have to give you the capability to copy-paste the material. I know, cause one time I tried to sue someone because I couldn't copy-paste their print book. If you don't like it, type a copy, or copy-paste it after disabling Javascript, or blocking the ***holes at icopyright.net via adblocker or hosts file.
I WISH people could be arrested for filing a false report. Remember, the whole problem is that there are no penalties for filing false reports, but there is a penalty for not taking the site down immediately.
I won't be paying for cable TV, nor will any of my brothers. If the cable companies don't adapt and fast, they will die out with our parent generation. It's not so much that they're using the wrong technology, but rather that a similar but cheaper option is available. Internet can just as easily do phone, radio, and TV as well generic data. Adapt or die, content providers.
Well one of its isotopes seems to have a longer half-life than my ping time, I guess that makes it stable! They can even make more than one atom per month!
Actually, the very first job of immune cells is to recognize self. After they can recognize self, then they go on to attack non-self. If the immune system were to attack self, you get various autoimmune diseases ranging from diabetes to arthritis. So what I wonder about these, given that they grow in a lab and never recognize you, is whether they will tag our own cells?
And, as a good prof you should consider if your attitude is causing some people to skip your lectures, and then fail. Especially if what you teach is different than the text.
I take notes in CS class as well. Only I take very few notes in that sort of class. I like to have a word-for-word of certain algorithms or formulas that may be talked about.
I think the term we're looking for here, is "indian class action lawsuit".
My guess, if the internet wins the Nobel Peace Prize, the money will go toward internet infrastructure in poor countries with a violence problem.
For chemists, solutions are things that are all mixed up!
1. Freedom is your right to act as you choose so long as your actions do not harm others
No, Freedom is your right to act as you choose, without retaliation. Other people's freedom is their right not to be harmed in certain ways by your actions.
You might argue that lack of privacy can limit choices by the threat of embarrassment, but freedom does not preclude embarrassing actions from your choice set. In other words, freedom does not require your choices to be easy and embarrassment-free, just possible. This is not to say that privacy isn't a right worth fighting for. But I don't think we should use the right to freedom to justify the right to privacy.
Go live in a dictatorship for a while, and you will realize that while you might be "free" to do something, that doesn't mean that the government won't haul your ass in jail (or execute you) the next day if they found out about it. Much like in America you're "free" to break the speed limit, fuck a cow, copy music, smoke pot, or shoot off fireworks so long as the government doesn't find out you did it. If there is significant chance that your actions will be retaliated against, you're not really free to do them, even if you are physically capable to do so. It is for this reason that freedom requires privacy; if people take offense at your actions and retaliate, you are not really free to do them. You could argue that indifference on the part of everyone could substitute for privacy, but that will never happen. Inasmuch as people don't retaliate for things they don't know, privacy guarantees freedom.
Unfortunately, the sheeple won't realize that if you don't do anything wrong, you still might have something to hide (because illegal things aren't always wrong, and embarrassing things aren't always wrong), especially if the government should ever turn against its people.
My parents did the get out of the car and walk thing (not necessarily all the way home) whenever me or my two brothers were too troublesome in the car. Often just a few blocks, and she'd follow in the car to pick us up when we calmed down a bit.
Now I usually go for a walk when I'm feeling frustrated or angry. Better than the other "solutions" for that.
Cheers,
penguinoid
Fight fire with fire.
I agree, and have changed my sig accordingly. If they can call it a PATRIOT Act or "Cute Furry Kitten Act", it is time we start doing the same right back at them, until people learn that thy can't judge something by its name or, even better, pull out the pichforks and torches and demand a return to proper naming conventions.
You fail to account for human stupidity and laziness. And shoplifters are plenty stupid IMO, very bad risk/payoff there, and too lazy to get a job. I'm pretty sure the chip requires some equipment to deactivate. Would you buy something so you can deactivate chips on the DVD's you stole?
Indeed, that was my first thought. I'm glad to see that they are doing something positive for a change. And yes, it should lower the markup on the DVD's because they don't need to recoup their (real world physical) losses due to theft. I just hope that they haven't added something sneaky in there too.
If the IT products we purchased were secure out of the box, we wouldn't have to spend billions every year making them secure."
If people didn't make mistakes, we would not neet policemen, most firemen, lawyers, judges, parents, or teachers. But they do, and will continue to, make mistakes.
Almost, but nope. The only way the distributors can force the retailers into anything is through agreements - ones the retailers enter into through their own volition.
That's a nice business you have there. It would be a shame if anything were to happen to it... If you give us some money, we could "protect" it for you.
A real libertarian should be for all of this, though - it's all voluntary agreements, by informed parties.
What about agreements that have some coercion (legal or otherwise) in them?
I want a clear quote that mentions genetic engineering specifically, not just your interpretation of some obscure passage.
:-) Jesus was not pleased.
Obviously, that would have been hard as there was no genetic engineering back then. And if you try to cover every special case, you will get something that looks like the current law system (try putting that on stone tablets). Someone mentioned that God created the animals to reproduce "after their kind" but it doesn't say we are not to interfere. Presumably sheep are not created in God's image, but what about these? (And how much in God's image are we anyhow? Carefully read about the effects of eating the forbidden fruit, very interesting.)
A different aspect, which will need to be dealt with regardless of christianity, is what status these chimeras have. Are they a human that is 85% sheep? Do they have any rights? (their purpose in life is to die so that you may have life, pun intended). What about when someone inevitably makes something with more than 50% human cells? If something is genetically human but developed as a sheep would, are they human? Are we allowed to eat them? (very bad idea). What if one of the egg cells is a human egg (or sperm)?
I mean, seriously, where do you so-called Christians get off making shit up and then claiming, "God said so?"
That's a tradition taken from ancient Israel
"You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men." Mark 7:8
Assuming you are Christian, didn't God say to dominate nature for our own purposes, putting fear and terror into the hearts of all animals? Heck, that's pretty much license to do whatever we want to nature, don't you think?
God said he would put the fear of man in the wild animals. But I hate the morons who say that just because we are supposed to dominate/subdue/rule over nature, that means that we should destroy it. How are you going to rule over it when it is destroyed?
--
In summary, chimeras are a very very dangerous idea from a moral standpoint, and are also likely to result in disease that once affected sheep now affecting both sheep and people.
The silliest arguments I have been reading are things like "Viacom benefits from YouTube, therefore Google isn't doing anything wrong" and "the copyright holders can request to have the stuff removed, so what's the big deal?"
Because part of the fair use guidelines include how the derivative work affects the work in question.
And because of the structure of the DMCA and because Google is not posting the content themselves, so long as they take down content within the legal limits when given an "opt-out" (takedown request) they are free of responsibility.
Which is more likely?
1. The universe popped into existence from nothing, or
2. A complex, intelligent, powerful creature (presumably with a beard) popped into existence from nothing, then one day decided to create the universe from nothing.
Or 3. A complex, intelligent, powerful creature has always existed, then one day decided to create the universe from nothing. Look! Things that are not effects do not require causes.
Long live the FSM.
But maybe there should be a rule about not allowing links to Articles full of Advertisement that span over 7 pages with about 100 words/page...
Here is where to complain.
To all those of you saying that cybersquatting is simply the result of the free market, well you are wrong. It is the result of improper pricing for domains in the first place. All short or word-like domains should have been priced higher. When prices are too low, a shortage will result -- as it has.
Also, Microsoft has a legitimate interest is removing cybersquatters, as do we all, because quite a few of these (appart from other issues) are phishing or pushing crapware (or just advertizing, but that is acceptable in my book). Also, holding domains captive results in crappier names for everyone, which is a bad thing.