The invasion of Iraq was not justified. Guess what, neither was the illegal bombing of Cambodia. Does that mean that Pol Pot wasn't really "evil" because he only killed a million people?
It's pretty hard to prove a negative. It's harder to prove a negative to someone who doesn't want to hear it. Even for a murderous dictator like Hussein, it's pretty untoward to expect him to let foreigners walk all over his country's sensitive installations, especially when this information is probably going to be used to attack his country. After all, since it turns out that he didn't have any significant WMDs, the most likely explanation for many of his expulsions of weapons inspectors really is that he didn't want U.S. spies in his country. Remember, he originally only expelled U.S. inspectors, and UNSCOM choose to withdraw entirely. Furthermore, under the impending threat of war, Iraq actually did begin to take tangible steps toward disarmament under UNMOVIC supervision, such as the destruction of its long range missiles. Despite his quite justified misgivings, Blix was optimistic about Iraq's cooperation, and there is little doubt that Iraq would have continued, however grudgingly, under the real threat of invasion.
Al Gore got a raw deal, I agree, although frankly I mostly blame comedians for latching onto it; I mean, it's not like I expect better of politicians than to misrepresent things. Nonetheless, Gore did frame his words ambiguously in a self-serving manner (which is again, of course, nothing less than what one would expect).
I have not fretted over any movie's sound since learning that Stanley Kubrick preferred mono for his films. To many great masters the message contains the inspiration, while the media is a distraction.
This doesn't follow. He is complaining about how an unnecessary attempt to make something sound "better" made the media distract him from the film. If distractions are bad, shouldn't he dislike distractions?
IANAL, so someone please educate me on this topic. If a reporter at the NYTimes comes into posession of information that is some company's trade secret and publishes it, is that protected under the first amendment? What about the Paducah Post? Does it have to do with simply bineg published? the amount circulation the periodical receives?
Apple isn't suing the bloggers to have the trade secrets taken off the internet. Yes, their speech is protected, and Apple agrees. The question is whether they have the privilege of not divulging their source in an instance where an ordinary citizen has no such privilege.
Being rich is not in itself a vice, but giving powerful people the benefit of the doubt is pretty foolish. Chances are, they aren't going to show any goodwill to the less powerful; they're just going to exploit any goodwill the less powerful show to them. Why should employees be grateful for jobs if employers aren't grateful for labor?
By the way, I sure am glad my real wages have gone up so much since in the last 25 years. Almost by.1%!
Their families have gotten over it and are no longer wearing black armbands, or so I've been told. Seriously though, it's a pathetic fallacy; the question isn't whether the animals are happy, but whether wildlife is thriving. It doesn't seem too implausible that humans are a greater threat to wildlife than nuclear waste.
Why content ourselves with spreading radioactive waste all over the former Soviet Union, when we could irradiate the whole atmosphere!
Seriously, I'm all for nuclear power. But sending a few kilograms of plutonium into space every now and then is risky enough, much less tens of thousands of tons of nuclear waste.
And yet the number of features Microsoft says Vista will have is only decreasing. They say you can sacrifice quality for speed, or speed for quality, but with Microsoft innovation you can do both!
Formal standards are more definitive in that being explicitly laid-out, there is no confusion as to just what the standards are. Tables and chairs, for example, while both furniture, are pretty different concepts. Chairs and stools, however, aren't. The word "evil" can have many shades of meaning, and using it to refer to something bad is hardly an egregious misuse of the word. "Evil" in particular is a pretty broad, complex, and disputed subject. Is the dictionary going to give you a complete overview of the views of Platonism, virtue ethics, Confucianism, Stoicism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Taoism, Sikhism, Zoroastrianism, Bahai, utilitarianism, existentialism, relativism, nihilism, biological morality, the categorical and hypothetical imperatives, egoism, altruism, etc.? Dictionaries stabilize definitions; they do not create them. Words don't mean whatever a person wants them to mean, they mean whatever people understand them to mean. Depending on context, "inflammable" does mean "flammable" or "not flammable." This isn't an opinion or a value judgement--it's a fact because people say and interpret "inflammable" as "not flammable." Context isn't everything, but it is an awful lot. Saying that established rules define language is also ridiculous because language is so complex that we have not yet devised any set of rules adequate to describe language in all situations.
I am not against using prescriptive language where appropriate--hell, I'm an English major. But one must understand that it is an arbitrary, artificial creation, and that "real" language is defined by how people actually speak. I personally dislike it when people misuse the phrase "beg the question" here, because unlike say, "chomp at the bit," it actually has a different meaning than "raises the question," and erodes the ability to use it meaningfully. But pulling out a dictionary for the word evil? Webster was certainly a vociferous man, but not a whole lot of people equate him with "esteemed moral philosopher."
What you sayin' ain't nothin' people be gettin'. I reckon folks what speak English got the gumption to make sense of all sortsa things. Yet while, "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously," is a perfectly grammatical sentence, it carries no meaning to an English speaker.
ok. so what is the definitive meaning of "evil"?
If I knew that, I'd be making millions off speaking engagements at universities instead of posting on slashdot.
Also, what criteria determines which usage of the word is the definitive one?
Your error is in assuming that there is a "definitive" usage. Usage is based on context. Words are used to convey ideas--if a person misuses a word, it is still usually possible to discern what they meant to say. Arguing about a definition of a word that a person wasn't referring to when they used the word isn't debating with them--it's arguing semantics.
If it is determined by popular use, how many people have to agree on a definition to make that definition change from a misuse of the word to the definitive use of the word?
The real question is, how popular does a non-standard usage have to become in order to become standard?
Since most people think inflammable means "not flammable" (even though it actually means "flammable"), does that mean propane and acetylene tanks are mislabeled when they say "caution: inflammable material"?
Inflammable is far from being accepted as standard or formal for "not flammable." That said, since such warnings are important to everyone and not just to English majors, it's probably best just to mark them "flammable."
People have been communicating with each other for a lot longer than dictionaries have been around. If someone is writing something for publication, or giving a formal speech, certainly they should try to adhere to prescriptive standards of language. But there is nothing better or more definitive about them.
Ah, but OS X doesn't use a BSD kernel! It uses a Mach kernel--the userland is BSD. You know, programs like ftp, things that are totally different on Windows:)
The reason most Dells are so cheap is because their competitive edge is low cost. People buy Dells because they're cheaper than most of the alternatives.
Neither Dell's XPS systems nor Apple's computers are trying to marketed as low cost commodity systems. They cost disproportionately more because people they are selling to people willing to pay more. Well, Apple at least; I doubt Dell will sell that many high-end gaming systems until they start putting them out under the Alienware brand because Dell has acquired such an image of producing commodity computers.
In other words, the market for high-end systems is monopolistic competition, not prefect competition.
Life, which you so nobly serve, comes from destruction, disorder and chaos. Take this empty glass. Here it is, peaceful, serene and boring. But if it is...destroyed...look at all these little things. So busy now. Notice how each one is useful. What a lovely ballet ensues so full of form and color. Now, think about all those people that created them. Technicians, engineers, hundreds of people who'll be able to feed their children tonight so those children can grow up big and strong and have little teeny weeny children of their own, and so on and so forth. Thus, adding to the great chain... of life. You see, Father, by creating a little destruction, I'm actually encouraging life. In reality, you and I are in the same business. Cheers.
Obviously Zorg was right. Closed source software isn't enough, even. We need to start smashing computers so we can hire people to fix them, creating more jobs and improving the economy.
"Rotating black holes are thought to be formed in the gravitational collapse of a massive rotating star or from the collapse of a collection of stars with an average non-zero angular momentum. Most stars rotate and therefore it is expected that most black holes in nature are rotating black holes." Rotating black hole - Wikipedia
Sorry, but you're wrong. The half-life or Uranium 238 (the most common variety) is 4.5 billion years... so I don't think I'd want to smell the number you presented, because I think I know where you pulled it from... even lesser isotopes of Uranium (234) have a half-life of 245,000 years. Of course you could be correct with some of the lesser isotopes created during the fission process, but the vast majority (like 90%) will still be Uranium 238.
So the vast majority of radioactive waste is pretty stable? That's not exactly an argument for the dangers of radioactive waste. Hell, beta radiation can safely be shielded against with household materials.
So, pulling the trigger of a shotgun while it's aimed at your head is probably more dangerous than pulling the trigger of a.38 aimed at your head, yet I'd prefer to do neither.
Heroin is more dangerous than methadone, too. I'd rather do neither, but I'd also like to keep rehab clinics open. The fact is that energy from fossil fuel has a human cost associated with it far greater than that of nuclear energy. Saying that we shouldn't improve our situation unless we can make it perfect is utopian.
No one argues that Yucca mountain is less safe than the on-site storage of nuclear waste that currently exists. But how many people have died from exposure to this more dangerously stored waste, compared to how many pedestrians are killed by vehicles?
Slashdot Mirror
Forget Halabja even, what about the Marsh Arabs?
The invasion of Iraq was not justified. Guess what, neither was the illegal bombing of Cambodia. Does that mean that Pol Pot wasn't really "evil" because he only killed a million people?
I'm pretty sure the receipts from Uncle Sam were sufficient proof that he ever had them.
It's pretty hard to prove a negative. It's harder to prove a negative to someone who doesn't want to hear it. Even for a murderous dictator like Hussein, it's pretty untoward to expect him to let foreigners walk all over his country's sensitive installations, especially when this information is probably going to be used to attack his country. After all, since it turns out that he didn't have any significant WMDs, the most likely explanation for many of his expulsions of weapons inspectors really is that he didn't want U.S. spies in his country. Remember, he originally only expelled U.S. inspectors, and UNSCOM choose to withdraw entirely. Furthermore, under the impending threat of war, Iraq actually did begin to take tangible steps toward disarmament under UNMOVIC supervision, such as the destruction of its long range missiles. Despite his quite justified misgivings, Blix was optimistic about Iraq's cooperation, and there is little doubt that Iraq would have continued, however grudgingly, under the real threat of invasion.
Al Gore got a raw deal, I agree, although frankly I mostly blame comedians for latching onto it; I mean, it's not like I expect better of politicians than to misrepresent things. Nonetheless, Gore did frame his words ambiguously in a self-serving manner (which is again, of course, nothing less than what one would expect).
This doesn't follow. He is complaining about how an unnecessary attempt to make something sound "better" made the media distract him from the film. If distractions are bad, shouldn't he dislike distractions?
Wait, so the first amendment gives you the right to refuse to submit to a subpoena in contempt of court? Which country's constitution is this?
Apple isn't suing the bloggers to have the trade secrets taken off the internet. Yes, their speech is protected, and Apple agrees. The question is whether they have the privilege of not divulging their source in an instance where an ordinary citizen has no such privilege.
By the way, I sure am glad my real wages have gone up so much since in the last 25 years. Almost by .1%!
Constant is constant of course, but it depends on what your definition of the word "is" is.
The obvious solution to this is to use unwilling subjects, such as in the Cincinnati radiation tests.
Their families have gotten over it and are no longer wearing black armbands, or so I've been told. Seriously though, it's a pathetic fallacy; the question isn't whether the animals are happy, but whether wildlife is thriving. It doesn't seem too implausible that humans are a greater threat to wildlife than nuclear waste.
Seriously, I'm all for nuclear power. But sending a few kilograms of plutonium into space every now and then is risky enough, much less tens of thousands of tons of nuclear waste.
And yet the number of features Microsoft says Vista will have is only decreasing. They say you can sacrifice quality for speed, or speed for quality, but with Microsoft innovation you can do both!
I am not against using prescriptive language where appropriate--hell, I'm an English major. But one must understand that it is an arbitrary, artificial creation, and that "real" language is defined by how people actually speak. I personally dislike it when people misuse the phrase "beg the question" here, because unlike say, "chomp at the bit," it actually has a different meaning than "raises the question," and erodes the ability to use it meaningfully. But pulling out a dictionary for the word evil? Webster was certainly a vociferous man, but not a whole lot of people equate him with "esteemed moral philosopher."
What you sayin' ain't nothin' people be gettin'. I reckon folks what speak English got the gumption to make sense of all sortsa things. Yet while, "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously," is a perfectly grammatical sentence, it carries no meaning to an English speaker.
If I knew that, I'd be making millions off speaking engagements at universities instead of posting on slashdot.
Also, what criteria determines which usage of the word is the definitive one?
Your error is in assuming that there is a "definitive" usage. Usage is based on context. Words are used to convey ideas--if a person misuses a word, it is still usually possible to discern what they meant to say. Arguing about a definition of a word that a person wasn't referring to when they used the word isn't debating with them--it's arguing semantics.
If it is determined by popular use, how many people have to agree on a definition to make that definition change from a misuse of the word to the definitive use of the word?
The real question is, how popular does a non-standard usage have to become in order to become standard?
Since most people think inflammable means "not flammable" (even though it actually means "flammable"), does that mean propane and acetylene tanks are mislabeled when they say "caution: inflammable material"?
Inflammable is far from being accepted as standard or formal for "not flammable." That said, since such warnings are important to everyone and not just to English majors, it's probably best just to mark them "flammable."
People have been communicating with each other for a lot longer than dictionaries have been around. If someone is writing something for publication, or giving a formal speech, certainly they should try to adhere to prescriptive standards of language. But there is nothing better or more definitive about them.
Actually, it isn't. Sorry to shatter your 17th century worldview. Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive.
You claiming to be smart in such a straightforward manner is like an auto mechanic trying to compare Shakespeare to Marlowe.
Ah, but OS X doesn't use a BSD kernel! It uses a Mach kernel--the userland is BSD. You know, programs like ftp, things that are totally different on Windows :)
Neither Dell's XPS systems nor Apple's computers are trying to marketed as low cost commodity systems. They cost disproportionately more because people they are selling to people willing to pay more. Well, Apple at least; I doubt Dell will sell that many high-end gaming systems until they start putting them out under the Alienware brand because Dell has acquired such an image of producing commodity computers.
In other words, the market for high-end systems is monopolistic competition, not prefect competition.
Obviously Zorg was right. Closed source software isn't enough, even. We need to start smashing computers so we can hire people to fix them, creating more jobs and improving the economy.
"Rotating black holes are thought to be formed in the gravitational collapse of a massive rotating star or from the collapse of a collection of stars with an average non-zero angular momentum. Most stars rotate and therefore it is expected that most black holes in nature are rotating black holes." Rotating black hole - Wikipedia
We know exactly what we face--the Sun will expand as it depletes its hydrogen, and all life on Earth will die.
So the vast majority of radioactive waste is pretty stable? That's not exactly an argument for the dangers of radioactive waste. Hell, beta radiation can safely be shielded against with household materials.
So, pulling the trigger of a shotgun while it's aimed at your head is probably more dangerous than pulling the trigger of a .38 aimed at your head, yet I'd prefer to do neither.
Heroin is more dangerous than methadone, too. I'd rather do neither, but I'd also like to keep rehab clinics open. The fact is that energy from fossil fuel has a human cost associated with it far greater than that of nuclear energy. Saying that we shouldn't improve our situation unless we can make it perfect is utopian.
No one argues that Yucca mountain is less safe than the on-site storage of nuclear waste that currently exists. But how many people have died from exposure to this more dangerously stored waste, compared to how many pedestrians are killed by vehicles?