Dude are you serious? On the off chance that you are, perhaps you should do a little research. You'll find out that supermarket shelves are in fact not plants, and that canned foods are not fruits that grow there without human intervention.
That's the problem with cities: People living in them become totally ignorant of the fact that despite not having to see it even once in a typical city-dweller's lifetime, the ecosystem is absolutely crucial to the survival of every man, woman and child, even if they never leave the concrete of the city.
Even the most processed of trashy foods requires, as a basic first step ingredient, some product of an ecosystem. Farms are not self-sustaining, without healthy, pollution-free rain, there are no crops or feeding paddocks. Without healthy bees, there is no honey. Without healthy birds, locusts would decimate crops.
It should be compulsory for every high schooler to spend one month of every year of school working on a farm. It's time we stopped schooling our kids to be cogs in the mindless machine of urban society and started educating them to be fully aware citizens of Mankind.
"Judges do not make the laws, they simply settle disputes with laws already made."
In an idea world. In an ideal world, all would be equal before the law, regardless of financial power. In an ideal world, judges would be truly independent of the executive branch, as opposed to being cherry picked due to having a history of toeing the line. In an ideal world, the legal system would be transparent to everyone with or without a legal degree.
In *this* world, however, judges serve the interests of the political parties that appointed them, making them in turn subservient to the elite who control the political process.
Well you see it's like this. The OP made a statement that was a tad too broad and could be misconstrued if more than was intended was read into it. When you take a situation like that, then you add in the conversational construct known as "humor" then you arrive at one of those so-called "jokes". This "joke" is intended to result in a reflex reaction in the reader, consisting of successive, rapid contractions of the diaphragm, often accompanied by a facial expression resembling a smile, but more exaggerated and with a more open esophageal passage. Usually, a sound is produced as well, which is referred to colloquially as "laughter".
I own a mobile phone store in Australia. Extended warranty and insurance are two products that the mobile phone provider is heavily pushing, offering commissions and minimum targets.
I can also say that extended warranty and insurance is essentially free money for the providers. If an electronic item does not break within 12 months on its own, the chances of a warranty-covered issue arising in the 12-24 month or later period is so low that it can be ignored. I don't think I've *ever* serviced a customer with an error that was not user-caused (i.e., outside warranty coverage) after the 12 month mark.
Extended warranty is nothing but an unmitigated rip off.
"HOWEVER, in the US you may mostly express criticism against government and judicial system"
Fat lot of good it does. The government still has the power to drag the population kicking and screaming into war. The RIAA and all moneyed elite prey upon the population the way sharks prey upon fish. People are allowed to disagree because the neo-nobility have discovered that its easier to remove people's freedom if you don't make it obvious.
No people are so hopelessly enslaved as those who truly believe they are free.
Wouldn't it be great if there was a large on line repository of knowledge that could be linked to when making broad claims and repeated insistence that a reader should "review history". That way you could make broad claims and actually link to the facts that you are referring to. We could call it the "World Wide Spider's Home" or something like that.
It never ceases to amaze me just how holier than thou Americans are vis a vis the Chinese. FD: I've never been to either country. I have, however, traveled extensively, and I know many, many people from both places. I am also familiar with the foreign policy of both nations, and pay attention to news coming out of there and in the world generally.
I think I am in a position to say that the US is in no position to be pointing fingers at other countries,m criticizing their behavior in any respect.
- China has the Great Firewall. - The US has illegal wiretaps. - China subjugates Tibet and the Uygur and threatens to annex Taiwan. - The US subjugates every nation in Latin America, and simply depopulates places that it decides it wants. - China's police often behave like little more than Jackboot thugs. - Anyone seen footage from how the authorities handled Katrina? (Unedited footage I mean, not the sanitized stuff for TV). - China polices its culture pretty closely with state organizations. - In the US government and the media maintain an ostensible distance, but for all intents and purposes, are one and the same.
Come now. Cut with the "CHINEZE ARE TEH EVILZ!" crap. If you want to point fingers at other nations and go around spreading your brand of Democracy (tm) then make sure you get it right first.
Myspace bought imeems assets, they have nothing at all to do with the liability that was created before they had anything at all to do with Snocap. Why would they be liable for anything at all?
People these days are litigation crazy. Something, anything goes wrong and they want to sue everyone in sight whether or not they have anything to do with anything.
I was using those examples to show that those particular applications of free speech could lead to lives being endangered.
Having the freedom to exposing a fraud is one of the reasons that free speech is necessary. I don't see any contradiction between your example and mine, certainly not one that requires the use of CAPITAL LETTERS to highlight your objection to what I said.
The public's response to the movie 2012 demonstrates that the vast majority of people simply don't have the level of education required to engage in critical thinking. Public lack of scientific education is the core problem here.
The problems you see in free speech pale in comparison to the problems with censorship.
I said nothing about censorship being the answer, in fact I clearly stated that I'm against it. I even stated that I have no idea what the solution to this problem is. I was merely pointing out that free speech as an absolute concept was problematic. You fabricated a point of view on my behalf that I was clear to avoid.
I don't care what your position on censorship is, it is wrong to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, or "BOMB!" on a crowded aircraft. That is putting lives at risk by exploiting human responses. These are not exercises of free speech in anything other than the most brainless dogmatic definition of the ideal.
Free speech and a censored state are not two halves of a binary choice.
You're the one who seems to be seeing in black and white.
I don't think there's any danger of modern science being "reformed" the way you describe. We're in far more danger of the masses infusing science with baseless conjecture due to the overall poor level of scientific education, resulting in the tainting of our scientific institutions with populist hokus. Witness NASA having to put together a press release reassuring the public after the movie 2012.
The idiotic "everyone's entitled to their own opinion, and nobody's opinion is inherently better" idea is resulting in homeopathy being immune from criticism because their opinions are equal to the opinions of qualified doctors. Here we have climate change skeptics, on the payroll of big oil getting the same weight as scientists with real, irrefutable data, thanks to this misguided "we are all entitled to an opinion and the right to promote it".
This is one of the fundamental flaws in the concept of free speech for all; it does not account for relative differences in resources. One wealthy liar can out-campaign ten poor truthful scientists.
I'm not against free speech, nor do I think censorship is the answer. I don't have a clue what the answer is, nor can I even suggest a solution.
I only want people to recognize that "free speech" as an absolute principle, while being all nice and cuddly as a concept, has very grave problems.
But remember that people were all created by God. Thus, Blue Destiny staff should all jump off a cliff in order to expedite their meeting him to take up the issue.
Anyone else would point out that in the real world, clients defer to the advice of lawyers when deciding what is in their best interest, and lawyers ensure that whatever the client *thinks* is in their best interest, is in fact the course of action that yields the highest number of billable hours.
Slashdot Mirror
Yea, you're right. Botnets are homo.
Damn bureaucrats. They want a form filled out for *everything*.
Dude are you serious? On the off chance that you are, perhaps you should do a little research. You'll find out that supermarket shelves are in fact not plants, and that canned foods are not fruits that grow there without human intervention.
That's the problem with cities: People living in them become totally ignorant of the fact that despite not having to see it even once in a typical city-dweller's lifetime, the ecosystem is absolutely crucial to the survival of every man, woman and child, even if they never leave the concrete of the city.
Even the most processed of trashy foods requires, as a basic first step ingredient, some product of an ecosystem. Farms are not self-sustaining, without healthy, pollution-free rain, there are no crops or feeding paddocks. Without healthy bees, there is no honey. Without healthy birds, locusts would decimate crops.
It should be compulsory for every high schooler to spend one month of every year of school working on a farm. It's time we stopped schooling our kids to be cogs in the mindless machine of urban society and started educating them to be fully aware citizens of Mankind.
"Judges do not make the laws, they simply settle disputes with laws already made."
In an idea world. In an ideal world, all would be equal before the law, regardless of financial power. In an ideal world, judges would be truly independent of the executive branch, as opposed to being cherry picked due to having a history of toeing the line. In an ideal world, the legal system would be transparent to everyone with or without a legal degree.
In *this* world, however, judges serve the interests of the political parties that appointed them, making them in turn subservient to the elite who control the political process.
Cue quantum physicists to state that in fact this does not exist anywhere but in the theoretical constructs of pure mathematics.
I bet you think that pun is just brilliant.
Well you see it's like this. The OP made a statement that was a tad too broad and could be misconstrued if more than was intended was read into it. When you take a situation like that, then you add in the conversational construct known as "humor" then you arrive at one of those so-called "jokes". This "joke" is intended to result in a reflex reaction in the reader, consisting of successive, rapid contractions of the diaphragm, often accompanied by a facial expression resembling a smile, but more exaggerated and with a more open esophageal passage. Usually, a sound is produced as well, which is referred to colloquially as "laughter".
I hope that clears it up.
So *that's* why it takes so long for a guy in the appropriations department to approve a new box of paperclips for the guy in accounting.
I own a mobile phone store in Australia. Extended warranty and insurance are two products that the mobile phone provider is heavily pushing, offering commissions and minimum targets.
I can also say that extended warranty and insurance is essentially free money for the providers. If an electronic item does not break within 12 months on its own, the chances of a warranty-covered issue arising in the 12-24 month or later period is so low that it can be ignored. I don't think I've *ever* serviced a customer with an error that was not user-caused (i.e., outside warranty coverage) after the 12 month mark.
Extended warranty is nothing but an unmitigated rip off.
Your non-car analogy is not welcome here.
"HOWEVER, in the US you may mostly express criticism against government and judicial system"
Fat lot of good it does. The government still has the power to drag the population kicking and screaming into war. The RIAA and all moneyed elite prey upon the population the way sharks prey upon fish. People are allowed to disagree because the neo-nobility have discovered that its easier to remove people's freedom if you don't make it obvious.
No people are so hopelessly enslaved as those who truly believe they are free.
Wouldn't it be great if there was a large on line repository of knowledge that could be linked to when making broad claims and repeated insistence that a reader should "review history". That way you could make broad claims and actually link to the facts that you are referring to. We could call it the "World Wide Spider's Home" or something like that.
I hate to be a grammar Nazi, but it seems you misspelled "OMG teh internetz is bringing me into contact with poeplz from outher coutnriez!"
It never ceases to amaze me just how holier than thou Americans are vis a vis the Chinese. FD: I've never been to either country. I have, however, traveled extensively, and I know many, many people from both places. I am also familiar with the foreign policy of both nations, and pay attention to news coming out of there and in the world generally.
I think I am in a position to say that the US is in no position to be pointing fingers at other countries,m criticizing their behavior in any respect.
- China has the Great Firewall.
- The US has illegal wiretaps.
- China subjugates Tibet and the Uygur and threatens to annex Taiwan.
- The US subjugates every nation in Latin America, and simply depopulates places that it decides it wants.
- China's police often behave like little more than Jackboot thugs.
- Anyone seen footage from how the authorities handled Katrina? (Unedited footage I mean, not the sanitized stuff for TV).
- China polices its culture pretty closely with state organizations.
- In the US government and the media maintain an ostensible distance, but for all intents and purposes, are one and the same.
Come now. Cut with the "CHINEZE ARE TEH EVILZ!" crap. If you want to point fingers at other nations and go around spreading your brand of Democracy (tm) then make sure you get it right first.
Oracle for ultra-heavy. SQLite for ultra-light. PostgreSQL for everything in the middle.
Did I miss anything?
Myspace bought imeems assets, they have nothing at all to do with the liability that was created before they had anything at all to do with Snocap. Why would they be liable for anything at all?
People these days are litigation crazy. Something, anything goes wrong and they want to sue everyone in sight whether or not they have anything to do with anything.
No, I think it was camouflage for their total inadequacy when it came to running a business.
Against whom?
You take that back before I give you the Celine Dion Limited Edition Discography including audio of her interviews and outtakes!
I was using those examples to show that those particular applications of free speech could lead to lives being endangered.
Having the freedom to exposing a fraud is one of the reasons that free speech is necessary. I don't see any contradiction between your example and mine, certainly not one that requires the use of CAPITAL LETTERS to highlight your objection to what I said.
The public's response to the movie 2012 demonstrates that the vast majority of people simply don't have the level of education required to engage in critical thinking. Public lack of scientific education is the core problem here.
I said nothing about censorship being the answer, in fact I clearly stated that I'm against it. I even stated that I have no idea what the solution to this problem is. I was merely pointing out that free speech as an absolute concept was problematic. You fabricated a point of view on my behalf that I was clear to avoid.
I don't care what your position on censorship is, it is wrong to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, or "BOMB!" on a crowded aircraft. That is putting lives at risk by exploiting human responses. These are not exercises of free speech in anything other than the most brainless dogmatic definition of the ideal.
Free speech and a censored state are not two halves of a binary choice.
You're the one who seems to be seeing in black and white.
I don't think there's any danger of modern science being "reformed" the way you describe. We're in far more danger of the masses infusing science with baseless conjecture due to the overall poor level of scientific education, resulting in the tainting of our scientific institutions with populist hokus. Witness NASA having to put together a press release reassuring the public after the movie 2012.
The idiotic "everyone's entitled to their own opinion, and nobody's opinion is inherently better" idea is resulting in homeopathy being immune from criticism because their opinions are equal to the opinions of qualified doctors. Here we have climate change skeptics, on the payroll of big oil getting the same weight as scientists with real, irrefutable data, thanks to this misguided "we are all entitled to an opinion and the right to promote it".
This is one of the fundamental flaws in the concept of free speech for all; it does not account for relative differences in resources. One wealthy liar can out-campaign ten poor truthful scientists.
I'm not against free speech, nor do I think censorship is the answer. I don't have a clue what the answer is, nor can I even suggest a solution.
I only want people to recognize that "free speech" as an absolute principle, while being all nice and cuddly as a concept, has very grave problems.
I think 4 would work. After that, everyone would lose all taste for music, and piracy would stop.
But remember that people were all created by God. Thus, Blue Destiny staff should all jump off a cliff in order to expedite their meeting him to take up the issue.
Only a lawyer would claim that.
Anyone else would point out that in the real world, clients defer to the advice of lawyers when deciding what is in their best interest, and lawyers ensure that whatever the client *thinks* is in their best interest, is in fact the course of action that yields the highest number of billable hours.