What is a fight? Does it have to involve fists? No.
Well, where I'm from a 'fight' is a physical altercation. A verbal "fight" would be an 'argument'. And I'd have to agree that pulling a gun during an argument is an overreaction, but shooting first would still put the blame on X.
I push them with my hands and make them stumble. That's assault (maybe).
True, but again, where I'm from a 'fight' would have to involve more than a single push.
If you start a fight with someone that doesn't mean you intended for it to escalate to someone dying. If X starts a fight with Y, then Y pulls out a gun, then X pulls out his gun and shoots Y, well, I blame Y for escalating.
So you get to break a rule that's already been agreed on, (assault/battery etc are illegal)
and impose your own rule that nobody else agreed to, or even likely knows about, (fists are fine, guns aren't, knives ????)
and you still get to break your own rule? (he hasn't pulled the trigger, but you get to escalate by shooting him)
This is either some of the worst rationalizing I've ever seen, or a massive case of narcissism.
IANAL, but as far as I can tell X has committed (at least) manslaughter.
You are an idiot.
I thought about replying to this part, but 'yurtinus' covered it in an extremely elegant manner.
Socialist Libertarianism was around for 400 years before Ayn Rand was even born
Well, the ideas were, but both words, and the phrase itself, are from the 19th century. The same is true for 'capitalism'.
This kind of company is called a cooperation or a mutualism - and there are thousands of successful ones in the world today - proving the concept.
True, and I would love it if non-profits and co-ops became a much larger sector of the economy. On the other hand, they tend to do best in specific niches, so I'm not too confident that they're ready to take on Apple and McDonald's.
1. Free speech zones were instituted by the Bush administration.
2. In fact, if you had bothered to spend five minutes - wikipedia would have told you how wrong you were.
1. This is false.
2. You'll forgive me for savoring this.
That's just a wild first guess. Unless you pay me for it, I'm not looking up actual law references. Especially the first one is not a victimless crime.
So you aren't really going to support your argument. That's fine. I won't even bother to ask you how guilt for the leaks includes Manning (or the actual leaker) and Assange, but doesn't extend to the newspapers that did the actual redacting and publishing.
First there's the people who have been named, both intelligence officers and activists. Several of the people Assange named have disappeared...
Who exactly are they, were they deliberately named by Assange or someone else, and could they have disappeared for entirely unrelated reasons?
Second there's the issue that this information (the updates, and due to the fact that access to everything has been revoked, everything else as well) is now inaccessible to lots of people who need it, including diplomats and soldiers on the field.
Ok, you're going to have to explain that one to me.
Political change : zero
Except that you mentioned the revolution in Tunisia and the withdraw from Iraq. And your treatment of Tunisia is especially revealing: you manage to both say that the leaks had no effect on events and that the leaks' effects were bad at the same time.
Most people DO know that there are secrets, so clearly your claim falls short that most people "aren't allowed to know" that they exist.
They might know "military secrets" exist, but that's not the same as knowing that (just as examples) the deliberate targeting of civilians, genocide, or medical experimentation on civilians could be one of those secrets.
I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that the powers granted the executive and legislative branches via the Constitution and 200 years of custom & tradition...
I'm not making a legal argument, I'm making a moral one.
Again, to use your bank analogy, what you are arguing is that breaking into the bank and rifling through all of their deposit boxes is justified because somebody who works for the bank *might* be doing something illegal, and YOU need to make certain that there is nothing untoward happening.
Not at all. I'm saying that when an employee overhears the bank manager telling a customer that a safety deposit box is a great place to hide a murder weapon, then following proper procedure (informing the bank manager) might not be the right way to go.
Most people would say that a financial audit, or a police report, are the 'proper' ways to go about this, but you seem certain that the police and any auditor are already in collusion with the bank to cover up their illegal behavior.
In the case of official secrets, the "auditors" work for the bank, and we are the "police". Every rare once in a while we need a "confidential informant".
If you can't concede that operational secrets are *sometimes* necessary...
You seem to be replying to someone else, or setting up a straw man.
You seem to be arguing that banks shouldn't be allowed to lock any safe deposit boxes at all,...
Again, what are you talking about? Having boxes is fine, having rules about using keys is fine. But on rare occasions picking a lock is a perfectly acceptable thing to do. To get back on topic, you've implied that there are always ways of changing "classification standards" without using espionage, which is a claim that you need to back up.
Demanding that "classification standards" be revised to provide more transparency doesn't require an intimate knowledge of classified material.
But vague demands aren't enough - if they were we could just put up signs that said "Do what's right" and be done with it. People will misuse any system that is put in place, and sometimes espionage can be a good way to get the attention needed to end that misuse.
If you disagree with the level of detail made public, there are ways to lobby for a change to that policy without engaging in espionage.
If most people are not even allowed to know those secrets exist, how will a group large enough to effect that kind of change even come up with the idea that they need to be disclosed? It's like my bank locking the key to my safety deposit box inside the box, and then demanding that I only access that box by using the appropriate key.
Publishing the ambassadors' documents was a heinous crime.
Could you specify what law was broken by this particular individual?
It exposed real people to real danger, just to flatter his own ego and conspiracy theories.
This worry has been expressed by many people, but could you support that with evidence?
And, of course, for conspiracy theorists those files turned out to be a big disappointment, unless... ... you actually paid attention to the news? Do you know how many news stories and political changes have taken place at least in part because of the information that was leaked?
If you are untrained and diagnosing things that is dangerous,... ... and the mature, responsible way to deal with that danger is to lie about it (or 'misrepresent' things)? Do you often lie and fear-monger in order to manipulate people into doing what you want?
The difference is the whole point of diagnostic ultrasound is to diagnose people. Get it? It's right there in the name.
So we rename it 'tissue-imaging ultrasound'. Since 'diagnostic' wouldn't be in the name anymore, it's now OK to let people use it. Right?
... it is more dangerous because the machine may give you unwarranted credibility.
So does a stethoscope, and I don't think those are banned yet.
The whole point of mentioning the relatively high mortality rate is to illustrate how risky a process pregnancy is, not to make some inane relative comparison to validate abortion.
OK, but that really wasn't clear in the post I replied to.
Those rare events are almost always fatal for someone, usually the fetus. It is nice to have a tool by which to address these kind of problems that doesn't involve accusations of murder or manslaughter attached.
If you kill someone when you have a 'reasonable belief' that it is the only way to save the life of another person it isn't murder. Even if a 'personhood law' was passed and abortion was legally defined as being murder, aborting a fetus in order to save the mother would still be legal, even without an explicit exception written into the law.
>>There is exactly zero evidence, for example, that diagnostic ultrasound carries any risks, but there are still limitations on its use (you can buy your own unit but can't use it on people unless you're a trained, insured, highly paid professional.)
>The risk of some untrained people using diagnostic ultrasound is that they may tell someone with cancer that they don't see anything to worry about.
Good point. Now what are we to do about the risk of an untrained person looking at a person with cancer and telling them that they look fine? What about psychics that tell parents that they see a long life ahead of their child, so they shouldn't bother taking them to a hospital no matter how sick he looks?
They made vast amounts of money when risks paid off, and when they didn't someone else paid their bills for them.
How is that 'failure'? It looks more like a spending spree followed by winning the lottery.
Post-birth, the morbidity rate drops significantly as the child's physiology isn't so dependent on a delicate balance between mother and child.
Infant mortality is still incredibly high compared to the mortality rates from toddler-hood through middle age, do you support infanticide? To be more direct, your argument is almost pure naturalistic fallacy - that because nature does X it's OK for us to do X.
Yep and the AEther in the heavens is dark/matter energy,
Aether has referred to many different things over the millennia, things we now refer to as dark matter, dark energy, the magnetic permeability of free space, the space-time continuum, and quantum foam. Like phlogiston, the problem was never that these 'aethers' didn't exist, but that they had different properties than people first supposed.
The difference is, we are talking about where the system where the energy comes from rather than actually doing the work.
No, the difference is an amount of energy vs. a rate of energy flow.
The reason you're mixing the two up and multiplying when you shouldn't is that "Watt" includes units of time (Joules/second) even though there's no time unit in the name, while kWh does not include units of time even though it uses hours in the name (seconds and hours cancel out - Joules/second * hours = Joules/3,600,000).
one watt is defined as one joule for/per one second (W=J/s)
Pretty much, but it could also be 60 joules over a period of a minute, or 3,600 joules over a hour.
one kilo watt (kW) is 1,000 joules for/per one second (kJ/s)
Again, that's one example, but so is 3,600,000 joules in an hour.
one kiloWatt hour (kWh) is 1,000 Joules per second for 3600 seconds
Another perfect example, but it could also be 1 Joule per second for 3,600,000 seconds, or 3,600,000 joules per second for just one second.
This however: 1 kWh = requires a 3,600 kW power source
Is false. You could just as easily get 1 kWh from 1 Watt solar cell, it would just take it 1,000 hours to do it.
None sense. a kWh is just kilowatts scaled to hours rather than seconds -> i.e. 1 kWh = requires a 3,600 kW power source
No. I'm sorry, I know it's a weird unit, but that's just wrong. A kilowatt-hour is one kilowatt for a hour - i.e. a 1 kw power source left on for an hour.
A power source with 3,600kW of potential energy...
Is the same as saying "A power source with 3,600 Joules per second of potential energy..." - the units don't match the kind of thing you're measuring.
The former is based on the observable world, and the latter is based on the spiritual (human conscious) world.
Right, science is based on the observable world, religion is based on things that go on in people's heads.
Our forefathers knew it was important to have both spiritual observance and material observance. Spirit was associated with the individual, and material with the whole; thus, they needed to separate the individual from the whole for independence to be feasible in the first place.
That's quite a claim, can you back it up with something?
Slashdot Mirror
Maliciously withholding something from someone effectively grants them permission to seek it elsewhere. Remind her of this.
Vote third party. I don't care if it's Libertarian, Green, Socialist, or Pirate. Just break the fucking corporatist hegemony.
Do you know how much cheaper it is to buy off a third party?
What is a fight? Does it have to involve fists? No.
Well, where I'm from a 'fight' is a physical altercation. A verbal "fight" would be an 'argument'. And I'd have to agree that pulling a gun during an argument is an overreaction, but shooting first would still put the blame on X.
I push them with my hands and make them stumble. That's assault (maybe).
True, but again, where I'm from a 'fight' would have to involve more than a single push.
If you start a fight with someone that doesn't mean you intended for it to escalate to someone dying. If X starts a fight with Y, then Y pulls out a gun, then X pulls out his gun and shoots Y, well, I blame Y for escalating.
So you get to break a rule that's already been agreed on, (assault/battery etc are illegal)
and impose your own rule that nobody else agreed to, or even likely knows about, (fists are fine, guns aren't, knives ????)
and you still get to break your own rule? (he hasn't pulled the trigger, but you get to escalate by shooting him)
This is either some of the worst rationalizing I've ever seen, or a massive case of narcissism.
IANAL, but as far as I can tell X has committed (at least) manslaughter.
You are an idiot.
I thought about replying to this part, but 'yurtinus' covered it in an extremely elegant manner.
Socialist Libertarianism was around for 400 years before Ayn Rand was even born
Well, the ideas were, but both words, and the phrase itself, are from the 19th century. The same is true for 'capitalism'.
This kind of company is called a cooperation or a mutualism - and there are thousands of successful ones in the world today - proving the concept.
True, and I would love it if non-profits and co-ops became a much larger sector of the economy. On the other hand, they tend to do best in specific niches, so I'm not too confident that they're ready to take on Apple and McDonald's.
1. Free speech zones were instituted by the Bush administration.
2. In fact, if you had bothered to spend five minutes - wikipedia would have told you how wrong you were.
1. This is false.
2. You'll forgive me for savoring this.
That's just a wild first guess. Unless you pay me for it, I'm not looking up actual law references. Especially the first one is not a victimless crime.
So you aren't really going to support your argument. That's fine. I won't even bother to ask you how guilt for the leaks includes Manning (or the actual leaker) and Assange, but doesn't extend to the newspapers that did the actual redacting and publishing.
First there's the people who have been named, both intelligence officers and activists. Several of the people Assange named have disappeared...
Who exactly are they, were they deliberately named by Assange or someone else, and could they have disappeared for entirely unrelated reasons?
Second there's the issue that this information (the updates, and due to the fact that access to everything has been revoked, everything else as well) is now inaccessible to lots of people who need it, including diplomats and soldiers on the field.
Ok, you're going to have to explain that one to me.
Political change : zero
Except that you mentioned the revolution in Tunisia and the withdraw from Iraq. And your treatment of Tunisia is especially revealing: you manage to both say that the leaks had no effect on events and that the leaks' effects were bad at the same time.
Most people DO know that there are secrets, so clearly your claim falls short that most people "aren't allowed to know" that they exist.
They might know "military secrets" exist, but that's not the same as knowing that (just as examples) the deliberate targeting of civilians, genocide, or medical experimentation on civilians could be one of those secrets.
I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that the powers granted the executive and legislative branches via the Constitution and 200 years of custom & tradition...
I'm not making a legal argument, I'm making a moral one.
Again, to use your bank analogy, what you are arguing is that breaking into the bank and rifling through all of their deposit boxes is justified because somebody who works for the bank *might* be doing something illegal, and YOU need to make certain that there is nothing untoward happening.
Not at all. I'm saying that when an employee overhears the bank manager telling a customer that a safety deposit box is a great place to hide a murder weapon, then following proper procedure (informing the bank manager) might not be the right way to go.
Most people would say that a financial audit, or a police report, are the 'proper' ways to go about this, but you seem certain that the police and any auditor are already in collusion with the bank to cover up their illegal behavior.
In the case of official secrets, the "auditors" work for the bank, and we are the "police". Every rare once in a while we need a "confidential informant".
If you can't concede that operational secrets are *sometimes* necessary...
You seem to be replying to someone else, or setting up a straw man.
You seem to be arguing that banks shouldn't be allowed to lock any safe deposit boxes at all, ...
Again, what are you talking about? Having boxes is fine, having rules about using keys is fine. But on rare occasions picking a lock is a perfectly acceptable thing to do. To get back on topic, you've implied that there are always ways of changing "classification standards" without using espionage, which is a claim that you need to back up.
Demanding that "classification standards" be revised to provide more transparency doesn't require an intimate knowledge of classified material.
But vague demands aren't enough - if they were we could just put up signs that said "Do what's right" and be done with it. People will misuse any system that is put in place, and sometimes espionage can be a good way to get the attention needed to end that misuse.
If you disagree with the level of detail made public, there are ways to lobby for a change to that policy without engaging in espionage.
If most people are not even allowed to know those secrets exist, how will a group large enough to effect that kind of change even come up with the idea that they need to be disclosed? It's like my bank locking the key to my safety deposit box inside the box, and then demanding that I only access that box by using the appropriate key.
Could you fill me in on some details?
Publishing the ambassadors' documents was a heinous crime.
Could you specify what law was broken by this particular individual?
It exposed real people to real danger, just to flatter his own ego and conspiracy theories.
This worry has been expressed by many people, but could you support that with evidence?
And, of course, for conspiracy theorists those files turned out to be a big disappointment, unless ...
... you actually paid attention to the news? Do you know how many news stories and political changes have taken place at least in part because of the information that was leaked?
I'd use corner cube dust. Hell, just cover the ship with them and start taunting people.
Well, neoclassical economics in its entirity has been refuted many times over...
Do you have a citation for that?
If you are untrained and diagnosing things that is dangerous, ...
... and the mature, responsible way to deal with that danger is to lie about it (or 'misrepresent' things)? Do you often lie and fear-monger in order to manipulate people into doing what you want?
The difference is the whole point of diagnostic ultrasound is to diagnose people. Get it? It's right there in the name.
So we rename it 'tissue-imaging ultrasound'. Since 'diagnostic' wouldn't be in the name anymore, it's now OK to let people use it. Right?
So does a stethoscope, and I don't think those are banned yet.
The whole point of mentioning the relatively high mortality rate is to illustrate how risky a process pregnancy is, not to make some inane relative comparison to validate abortion.
OK, but that really wasn't clear in the post I replied to.
Those rare events are almost always fatal for someone, usually the fetus. It is nice to have a tool by which to address these kind of problems that doesn't involve accusations of murder or manslaughter attached.
If you kill someone when you have a 'reasonable belief' that it is the only way to save the life of another person it isn't murder. Even if a 'personhood law' was passed and abortion was legally defined as being murder, aborting a fetus in order to save the mother would still be legal, even without an explicit exception written into the law.
>>There is exactly zero evidence, for example, that diagnostic ultrasound carries any risks, but there are still limitations on its use (you can buy your own unit but can't use it on people unless you're a trained, insured, highly paid professional.)
>The risk of some untrained people using diagnostic ultrasound is that they may tell someone with cancer that they don't see anything to worry about.
Good point. Now what are we to do about the risk of an untrained person looking at a person with cancer and telling them that they look fine? What about psychics that tell parents that they see a long life ahead of their child, so they shouldn't bother taking them to a hospital no matter how sick he looks?
They made vast amounts of money when risks paid off, and when they didn't someone else paid their bills for them.
How is that 'failure'? It looks more like a spending spree followed by winning the lottery.
Post-birth, the morbidity rate drops significantly as the child's physiology isn't so dependent on a delicate balance between mother and child.
Infant mortality is still incredibly high compared to the mortality rates from toddler-hood through middle age, do you support infanticide? To be more direct, your argument is almost pure naturalistic fallacy - that because nature does X it's OK for us to do X.
Yep and the AEther in the heavens is dark /matter energy,
Aether has referred to many different things over the millennia, things we now refer to as dark matter, dark energy, the magnetic permeability of free space, the space-time continuum, and quantum foam. Like phlogiston, the problem was never that these 'aethers' didn't exist, but that they had different properties than people first supposed.
GP probably still believes in Phlogiston
Phlogiston does exist, it's a nickname for highly entropic kinetic energy.
The difference is, we are talking about where the system where the energy comes from rather than actually doing the work.
No, the difference is an amount of energy vs. a rate of energy flow.
The reason you're mixing the two up and multiplying when you shouldn't is that "Watt" includes units of time (Joules/second) even though there's no time unit in the name, while kWh does not include units of time even though it uses hours in the name (seconds and hours cancel out - Joules/second * hours = Joules/3,600,000).
one watt is defined as one joule for/per one second (W=J/s)
Pretty much, but it could also be 60 joules over a period of a minute, or 3,600 joules over a hour.
one kilo watt (kW) is 1,000 joules for/per one second (kJ/s)
Again, that's one example, but so is 3,600,000 joules in an hour.
one kiloWatt hour (kWh) is 1,000 Joules per second for 3600 seconds
Another perfect example, but it could also be 1 Joule per second for 3,600,000 seconds, or 3,600,000 joules per second for just one second.
This however:
1 kWh = requires a 3,600 kW power source
Is false. You could just as easily get 1 kWh from 1 Watt solar cell, it would just take it 1,000 hours to do it.
None sense. a kWh is just kilowatts scaled to hours rather than seconds -> i.e. 1 kWh = requires a 3,600 kW power source
No. I'm sorry, I know it's a weird unit, but that's just wrong. A kilowatt-hour is one kilowatt for a hour - i.e. a 1 kw power source left on for an hour.
A power source with 3,600kW of potential energy...
Is the same as saying "A power source with 3,600 Joules per second of potential energy..." - the units don't match the kind of thing you're measuring.
They also have proven they're getting at least some transubstantiation going on...
I'm pretty sure that if they find blood in there, it's because someone cut their finger.
Since when has prior use stopped them from suing someone?
The former is based on the observable world, and the latter is based on the spiritual (human conscious) world.
Right, science is based on the observable world, religion is based on things that go on in people's heads.
Our forefathers knew it was important to have both spiritual observance and material observance. Spirit was associated with the individual, and material with the whole; thus, they needed to separate the individual from the whole for independence to be feasible in the first place.
That's quite a claim, can you back it up with something?