I put it to you: (just playing devil's advocate here) . . What if sometimes the bribe offer says "you know you are supposed to do X, and I know you are supposed to do X, but you are about to do Y because you are a greedy shit fuck. I want to secretly pay you, and make it worth your while, to do X instead."
The flaw is in the structure of the proof itself: an assumption is made (a-0.99999...) Calculations are performed. Then it is shown that a=1. This is simply a contradiction about the only assumption that was made, which means the assumption is false. This proof simply says that a cannot have been 0.999... in the first place. Don't get me wrong, I am not claiming that 0.999... does not equal 1. I am simply saying that this "proof" does not prove it.
But those loopholes are just artificial restrictions to the 1st amendment that have been placed on us by the government . . people taking advantage of those loopholes are simply exercising the rights that are supposedly guaranteed to them anyway.
Well, I definitely agree with that. The oldies and classic rock stations take decades of music and boils it down to the truly greats that we hear today. Compare that to pop music, which is a bunch of crap with one or two decent ones mixed in every once in a while and you can see how comparing the two makes it look like the music of the past was better in general. It is still fun to say though;)
Calm down. I think when people say today's music sucks they are talking about pop (stuff you hear on the radio) music, and that music, regardless of your apparent emotional attachment to the subject, does indeed suck.
Is merely the publishing of data to be considered journalism?
Maybe not, but "journalism" isn't what is protected by the first amendment. I'd say merely publishing data like this is also part of the "press" referenced in that amendment.
Heh, actually I'm not even American. I was just making an observation. Seems like I hit a nerve... the same is possibly true for the masses of the opposition. Fortunately you just helped me make my real point.
I agree that permitting external access can compromise your information security, but that is not the question that was asked, so it is not the question that I answered. The question was simply should the school allow access to your personal files. My answer, equivalent to how medical records are allowed to be released if you give signed permission, was that it is proper for schools to release your information IF you have given permission.
20. ^ Graham Fuller in interview with Peter Bergen, Bergen, Peter, Holy War Inc., Free Press, (2001), p.68
21. ^ Henry S. Bradsher, Afghan Communism and Soviet Interventions, Oxford University Press, 1999, p.185
22. ^ "The Road to September 11". Evan Thomas. Newsweek. 1 October 2001.
23. ^ "1986-1992: CIA and British Recruit and Train Militants Worldwide to Help Fight Afghan War". Cooperative Research History Commons. http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a86operationcyclone. Retrieved 2007-01-11.
24. ^ "CIA worked with Pak to create Taliban". India Abroad News Service. 2001-03-06. http://www.rawa.org/cia-talib.htm. Retrieved 2007-01-11.
25. ^ "CIA bin Laden". October 2001. http://www.sabrang.com/cc/archive/2001/oct01/cover6.htm. Retrieved 2007-01-10.
26. ^ "Did the U.S. "Create" Osama bin Laden?". US Department of State. 2005-01-14. http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Jan/24-318760.html. Retrieved 2007-01-09.
So then the only problem here is our two conflicting definitions of GOD. Yours is much more strict than mine. Maybe god exists and created the world, yet there is SOME limitation to his powers, however small that limitation might be. Who knows. We are all playing a game of hypotheticals here, so why should my hypotheticals be limited by yours choice of what god is?
Well that's a false dichotomy if I ever saw one. It could also mean the original translation was wrong, the original writing was wrong, that god meant for it to be interpreted in the best possible way, that God meant for it to be interpreted by people and as long as each individual did what they believed was right they would be rewarded . ..Hell, maybe it means God doesn't exist. It could mean all kinds of things, not just the two very narrow interpretations you provide.
They could have gone the Six Feet Under route and showed a fast forward of each character's life until they died, but I thought that was a terrible ending and I'm glad they didn't repeat it here.
But "intellectual property" does have a clear meaning. It means trademark, copyright, and patent. Just because a person has a problem with all three of those types of IP does not mean they were tricked into using the term because they thought it only applied to copyright and they didn't know it also included patents. Maybe another argument could be that copyright is bad but trademark is good, but like I said, that is another argument.
My point was that if a government entity uses its monopoly powers to require all users of a service to sign a contract, then that contract is a de facto law. I'll put it another way. The law says that the only way you can broadcast on that spectrum is by signing the contract with the FCC. If you break the contract, you are fined an arbitrary amount determined by the FCC. That pretty much makes the contract de facto law. Saying that the FCC's rules aren't the law is just playing a semantics game.
I think the difference between "anonymous" and "off the record" is subtle but very important. If a complaint is "anonymous" then a record of the complaint is taken, but the identity of the complainer is kept secret. If a complaint is "off the record" then the both the identity of the complainer and the fact there was even a complaint is kept secret.
So how does this effect real life? An anonymous complaint can be taken to a judge as grounds to get a search warrant to find other evidence of a crime. An off the record complaint cannot usually be used for much.
Slashdot Mirror
I put it to you: (just playing devil's advocate here) . . What if sometimes the bribe offer says "you know you are supposed to do X, and I know you are supposed to do X, but you are about to do Y because you are a greedy shit fuck. I want to secretly pay you, and make it worth your while, to do X instead."
I'm 30 and I only know the answer to half those questions!
Well that was a great help, and a major contribution to the conversation! Maybe you could explain what part of what I said was wrong?
The flaw is in the structure of the proof itself: an assumption is made (a-0.99999...) Calculations are performed. Then it is shown that a=1. This is simply a contradiction about the only assumption that was made, which means the assumption is false. This proof simply says that a cannot have been 0.999... in the first place. Don't get me wrong, I am not claiming that 0.999... does not equal 1. I am simply saying that this "proof" does not prove it.
But those loopholes are just artificial restrictions to the 1st amendment that have been placed on us by the government . . people taking advantage of those loopholes are simply exercising the rights that are supposedly guaranteed to them anyway.
And why is that so irking?
Well, I definitely agree with that. The oldies and classic rock stations take decades of music and boils it down to the truly greats that we hear today. Compare that to pop music, which is a bunch of crap with one or two decent ones mixed in every once in a while and you can see how comparing the two makes it look like the music of the past was better in general. It is still fun to say though ;)
Calm down. I think when people say today's music sucks they are talking about pop (stuff you hear on the radio) music, and that music, regardless of your apparent emotional attachment to the subject, does indeed suck.
Except the part about the music is true . .
Is merely the publishing of data to be considered journalism?
Maybe not, but "journalism" isn't what is protected by the first amendment. I'd say merely publishing data like this is also part of the "press" referenced in that amendment.
Heh, actually I'm not even American. I was just making an observation. Seems like I hit a nerve... the same is possibly true for the masses of the opposition. Fortunately you just helped me make my real point.
Lawyered!
I agree that permitting external access can compromise your information security, but that is not the question that was asked, so it is not the question that I answered. The question was simply should the school allow access to your personal files. My answer, equivalent to how medical records are allowed to be released if you give signed permission, was that it is proper for schools to release your information IF you have given permission.
It is proper for the school to allow access to anyone the student permits.
20. ^ Graham Fuller in interview with Peter Bergen, Bergen, Peter, Holy War Inc., Free Press, (2001), p.68 21. ^ Henry S. Bradsher, Afghan Communism and Soviet Interventions, Oxford University Press, 1999, p.185 22. ^ "The Road to September 11". Evan Thomas. Newsweek. 1 October 2001. 23. ^ "1986-1992: CIA and British Recruit and Train Militants Worldwide to Help Fight Afghan War". Cooperative Research History Commons. http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a86operationcyclone. Retrieved 2007-01-11. 24. ^ "CIA worked with Pak to create Taliban". India Abroad News Service. 2001-03-06. http://www.rawa.org/cia-talib.htm. Retrieved 2007-01-11. 25. ^ "CIA bin Laden". October 2001. http://www.sabrang.com/cc/archive/2001/oct01/cover6.htm. Retrieved 2007-01-10. 26. ^ "Did the U.S. "Create" Osama bin Laden?". US Department of State. 2005-01-14. http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Jan/24-318760.html. Retrieved 2007-01-09.
So then the only problem here is our two conflicting definitions of GOD. Yours is much more strict than mine. Maybe god exists and created the world, yet there is SOME limitation to his powers, however small that limitation might be. Who knows. We are all playing a game of hypotheticals here, so why should my hypotheticals be limited by yours choice of what god is?
Well that's a false dichotomy if I ever saw one. It could also mean the original translation was wrong, the original writing was wrong, that god meant for it to be interpreted in the best possible way, that God meant for it to be interpreted by people and as long as each individual did what they believed was right they would be rewarded . . .Hell, maybe it means God doesn't exist. It could mean all kinds of things, not just the two very narrow interpretations you provide.
Exactly. Just a few weeks ago we got a notice in the mail that the water rates are going to go up soon. Why? Because water usage is DOWN in my area.
While generally true, there is at least one counterexample: University of Maryland University College.
Where is country and western music indigenous to?
No, we need to make room for a medical drama!
They could have gone the Six Feet Under route and showed a fast forward of each character's life until they died, but I thought that was a terrible ending and I'm glad they didn't repeat it here.
But "intellectual property" does have a clear meaning. It means trademark, copyright, and patent. Just because a person has a problem with all three of those types of IP does not mean they were tricked into using the term because they thought it only applied to copyright and they didn't know it also included patents. Maybe another argument could be that copyright is bad but trademark is good, but like I said, that is another argument.
My point was that if a government entity uses its monopoly powers to require all users of a service to sign a contract, then that contract is a de facto law. I'll put it another way. The law says that the only way you can broadcast on that spectrum is by signing the contract with the FCC. If you break the contract, you are fined an arbitrary amount determined by the FCC. That pretty much makes the contract de facto law. Saying that the FCC's rules aren't the law is just playing a semantics game.
Sounds like a classic case of de facto vs de jeur. . . .
I think the difference between "anonymous" and "off the record" is subtle but very important. If a complaint is "anonymous" then a record of the complaint is taken, but the identity of the complainer is kept secret. If a complaint is "off the record" then the both the identity of the complainer and the fact there was even a complaint is kept secret.
So how does this effect real life? An anonymous complaint can be taken to a judge as grounds to get a search warrant to find other evidence of a crime. An off the record complaint cannot usually be used for much.