Parents can parent better if their kids can't buy a pack when the parent is not looking. And no, parents cannot look at all times, if they did the kid would turn out mentally damaged.
Well yeah but without that data the card cannot be matched to an owner and someone could get spares and hand them off to minors. At least with ID cards they'd think twice before handing it off to someone and can get in trouble for it. Besides, carrying a separate card for every form of verification just becomes a hassle, noone wants ten different cards for ten different things in their pocket.
I don't know where he is but here in Germany they use a special chip called "Geldkarte" (money card) that you have to charge at a terminal at your bank and can then use for payment, I guess it doesn't require a network connection like a regular direct debit would need. Not sure people actually use it since you could just as well get the money in cash instead of loading it on the card and more places accept cash than the GK.
but mandated IDs for all adults are a far way away, even here in the soviet repu^H^H^H^H^United states of America.
The US is actually one of the least friendly countries towards mandatory ID, many others have citizen ID cards, mandatory registration with the municipality, etc. To me it just sounds totally absurd when people say they bring their phone bill to identify themselves.
So an omnibenevolent God created the world, placing evidence in it that he didn't and equipping us with the mental facilities to analyze said evidence, then sends us to hell for believing that evidence (as well as creating a forbidden tree and a tempting snake to trick us into eating from the tree and then punishing us for it)?
We use Ockham's razor, the rule to not unnecessarily introduce latent factors.
Compare: 1. The big bang happened spontaneously 2. God came into existence spontaneously and created the big bang
From what we know at the moment both are equally valid but that means there is no reason to add the latent factor God because then we'd have another entity to deal with that we'd have to describe (how the hell does God work? What is it made of?).
Set up a controlled laboratory setting. Place a bush in the middle of the room. Light said bush on fire. If the burning bush speaks and says in a booming voice that creationism is wrong, don't stone the circus fortune teller to death, that we are allowed to eat shellfish, to quit the gay-hate, and that we we are permitted to wear poly-cotton-blend clothing, then those are proper scientific experimental results to reject creationism.
Is it allowed to just threaten to light him on fire unless he says that? I have my doubts George could remember that whole text though...
To make this appropriately geeky again, Asimov's spacers select their children before birth yet their most brilliant roboticist isn't very pretty and would have been weeded out on the more restrictive worlds.
Of course that only really applies when you talk about whether or not to abort a child because of genetic signs, in this case we're talking about choosing one out of several potential children and choosing one will always result in the death of the others. Each has a potential future but only one can realize it, if you just say it's impossible to decide that beforehand you have to roll a die. Playing poker without looking at your hand isn't the smartest thing to do...
How so? Only one of them would be born anyway, it's not a guaranteed loss of talent that the one that gets chosen has to be healthy. Sure, it reduces genetic variety a bit but genes that cause defects aren't exactly useful anyway and wouldn't survive in the wild.
Recently a radio station here tried to make it sound like people can fulfill their dreams now that the ESA is recruiting by going on about how great being an astronaut is, then they asked an ESA employee about the required qualifications... A PhD in physics or other sciences was one of the requirements.
In vitro fertilization creates a load of embryos due to the high defect rate. Only one of them gets implanted. Makes sense to pick the healthiest one, no?
Talking about murder is really damn silly there, we're talking about single cells in a petri dish.
Unfortunately there are people who think that the best way to teach their children restraint on their sexual behaviour is to never tell the child what sex is. Those children tend to find it out when they get teen-pregnant.
Slashdot Mirror
Parents can parent better if their kids can't buy a pack when the parent is not looking. And no, parents cannot look at all times, if they did the kid would turn out mentally damaged.
Marijuana? Japan looks like they legalized LSD.
Well yeah but without that data the card cannot be matched to an owner and someone could get spares and hand them off to minors. At least with ID cards they'd think twice before handing it off to someone and can get in trouble for it. Besides, carrying a separate card for every form of verification just becomes a hassle, noone wants ten different cards for ten different things in their pocket.
I don't know where he is but here in Germany they use a special chip called "Geldkarte" (money card) that you have to charge at a terminal at your bank and can then use for payment, I guess it doesn't require a network connection like a regular direct debit would need. Not sure people actually use it since you could just as well get the money in cash instead of loading it on the card and more places accept cash than the GK.
but mandated IDs for all adults are a far way away, even here in the soviet repu^H^H^H^H^United states of America.
The US is actually one of the least friendly countries towards mandatory ID, many others have citizen ID cards, mandatory registration with the municipality, etc. To me it just sounds totally absurd when people say they bring their phone bill to identify themselves.
So an omnibenevolent God created the world, placing evidence in it that he didn't and equipping us with the mental facilities to analyze said evidence, then sends us to hell for believing that evidence (as well as creating a forbidden tree and a tempting snake to trick us into eating from the tree and then punishing us for it)?
We use Ockham's razor, the rule to not unnecessarily introduce latent factors.
Compare:
1. The big bang happened spontaneously
2. God came into existence spontaneously and created the big bang
From what we know at the moment both are equally valid but that means there is no reason to add the latent factor God because then we'd have another entity to deal with that we'd have to describe (how the hell does God work? What is it made of?).
Set up a controlled laboratory setting. Place a bush in the middle of the room. Light said bush on fire. If the burning bush speaks and says in a booming voice that creationism is wrong, don't stone the circus fortune teller to death, that we are allowed to eat shellfish, to quit the gay-hate, and that we we are permitted to wear poly-cotton-blend clothing, then those are proper scientific experimental results to reject creationism.
Is it allowed to just threaten to light him on fire unless he says that? I have my doubts George could remember that whole text though...
Is the Holocaust one of those topics?
-Staunch supporters of evolution believe that a god and/or gods does not exist since everything came about to being by a random sequence of events
Non sequitur, absence of creation does not imply absense of deity.
This doesn't seem to be about travellers.
I like being conservative about Not Capitalizing Every Word.
And then they go into imaginary prison where the floors and walls are switched?
To make this appropriately geeky again, Asimov's spacers select their children before birth yet their most brilliant roboticist isn't very pretty and would have been weeded out on the more restrictive worlds.
Of course that only really applies when you talk about whether or not to abort a child because of genetic signs, in this case we're talking about choosing one out of several potential children and choosing one will always result in the death of the others. Each has a potential future but only one can realize it, if you just say it's impossible to decide that beforehand you have to roll a die. Playing poker without looking at your hand isn't the smartest thing to do...
Having a functioning brain is a pretty definitive distinction.
And acceptance of the non-"defective" embryos would result in a 100% guaranteed loss of genuises from the remaining set.
How so? Only one of them would be born anyway, it's not a guaranteed loss of talent that the one that gets chosen has to be healthy. Sure, it reduces genetic variety a bit but genes that cause defects aren't exactly useful anyway and wouldn't survive in the wild.
If you ask people whether a living person is better off dead they imagine killing that person now, not never conceiving him.
Recently a radio station here tried to make it sound like people can fulfill their dreams now that the ESA is recruiting by going on about how great being an astronaut is, then they asked an ESA employee about the required qualifications... A PhD in physics or other sciences was one of the requirements.
You mean, in Soviet Russia a tumor develops your brain?
In vitro fertilization creates a load of embryos due to the high defect rate. Only one of them gets implanted. Makes sense to pick the healthiest one, no?
Talking about murder is really damn silly there, we're talking about single cells in a petri dish.
Open source, not open repository.
Unfortunately there are people who think that the best way to teach their children restraint on their sexual behaviour is to never tell the child what sex is. Those children tend to find it out when they get teen-pregnant.
Opera seems to free most of its used memory if you minimize it, mine was at 160MB or so, I minimized and restored the window and it went down to 24MB.
Do us a favour and shoot him, k?