I love how you think I'm right winged and republican.
I'm a libertarian, thank you very much.
And how much technological innovation has come from 'socialist' France in the past 50 years? What two countries can you thank for 90% of the technology you are using just to post here? America and Japan: the two most capitalistic countries in the world.
There are incompetent companies, just as there are incompetent governemnt agencies. FedEx, UPS, and DHL are several times better and more reliable than the USPO. Just because Social Security doesn't spend a lot of it's cash on administration doesn't mean its competent. The way they have it set up will make it *impossible* for it to survive past the baby boom. HMOs, however, will.
The only way to truely change a government agency is by revolution or a huge mandate towards a party. With the way politics are right now, niether of those things is going to happen any day soon in America. The way to change incompetence in a capitalism? Stop buying their product. People have done it many times before, and will continue to do so.
Yes, let's compare it to social security, which is so ill concieved that its about to go broke within my generation.
Or how about FDA, taken your Vioxx yet? Or your Celebrex?
The wonderful thing about capitalism is that if the companies aren't competent they won't stand the test of time, unless they are considerably cheaper than alternatives. The same is not true for bureaucracy.
The grandparent said a large percentage, not a large group of people. No matter how many people it is, 1% isn't a large percentage of people, it's a very small percentage.
There's probably 1% of the world who would consider 26k a drop in the bucket. Thats more than half the average annual income in the richest country in the world.
For the last time, Microsoft promised features found in Google Desktop and Spotlight, years ago as part of Longhorn. There are *plenty* of cases where MS steals ideas, but in this case Google and Apple got to the market first with a product MS promised about prior.
Yeah, I'm aware MS didn't invent the idea, but they certainly didn't steal it from Google or Apple.
1. The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.
from dictionary.com
Thats how most people see proof, thus its definition as number 1. Here is the scientific explanation, coming in at number 2:
2. a. The validation of a proposition by application of specified rules, as of induction or deduction, to assumptions, axioms, and sequentially derived conclusions. b. A statement or argument used in such a validation.
There have been both fathers and grandparents who care for an unborn baby. They go to court to try to stop or prevent an abortion because they want to take care of the child, even promising to adopt the child legally and take care of it 100%. Don't these people care for that unborn baby? And if that's so, youve created a definition of "human" that is VERY easy to change at one's whim, which could easily lead to abuse.
The definition of human, in regards to human rights, should be unstretching. It needs to be some absolute point so there are no abuses of the system.
I agree with your DNA statements, DNA does not make humans.
"experiments are performed to try to confirm that the logical predictions of a theory are indeed the case"
And some may call this "proof" I don't mean proof in the truest scientific or mathematical sense, I mean it like 99% of people mean it, and like the original poster meant it. I think the correct phrase the original poster meant was "there is no evidence that evolution causes speciation". That was clearly the intent, and the response to that should be "yes there is, here is some proof [evidence]" not "science experiments dont try to prove anything!"
Plenty of scienfitific experiments set out to prove something. For a theory to be considered valid there needs to be at least some evidence for the theory, not just the lack of evidence against it. The burden of proof lies on the person making the claim. There's never been any evidence against the existence of a giant invisible mind controlling goat either, it doesn't mean it's a valid scientific theory.
By the way, I'm not saying there isn't evidence supporting evolution, there's plenty of it, I'm just correcting the way you corrected the grandparent.
Microsoft announced this idea several *years* ago, as part of Longhorn. While they haven't delivered yet, because well...Longhorn hasn't delivered yet, the idea was still there, and Apple most certainly didn't have Spotlight before that. Furthermore, MS even had the idea of virtual folders that would contain search results, which I hear is also a feature of Spotlight.
Scientists built a car today that doesn't require any fuel at all!!
All you do is put the car in neutral, grab a buddy and stand behind the car. Then, placing your hands on the rear bumper...push. Scientists believe it's such a simple process we may all be getting around in these miracle cars any day now!
Here's the difference, and here's why your analogy fails.
There are two types of theft. Theft of a physical object, and theft of labour. Despite what you said about all natural things being free, that's not true. You own a physical item even if it's natural and even if you put no labour in it. Anyway...
The apple pie analogy falls because of the following. Let's say you make 1000 apple pies, and as you said, the sale of each makes up but a fraction of the cost of making all the pies. If I steal a pie, the store can only sell 999 pies. If they sell them for 10 dollars a piece when all the pies are sold they have 10 dollars less.
The problem with your haircut analogy is as follows: The time spent on you was done only to you, and your payment was the only payment for the man's time. If you don't pay, he gets nothing in return, and he is out 10-20 minutes of time.
Now let's use a real analogy. You pay tuition for college. That money goes to the teachers. If there is a class with 30 students in it, in a lecture hall that holds 100, and you, who do not go to that school, decide to sit in during the lecture, have you stolen something? Perhaps, but it is *not* the moral equivalent of running out of a haircut or stealing an apple pie. No one lost because of you being in the lecture hall, but you are taking a service you didn't pay for.
"What we are trying to do with our major brands is to support them in every way possible," Marvel Studios chairman and CEO Avi Arad said. "To support the franchise between sequels, we'll have the animated series, the video games (through Activision) and the merchandise licensing. We are just elated to be reintroducing this huge property."
And by "support" they obviously mean "suck dry"
Actually the constitution of America, if you want to throw it around so lightly states that congress shall make no law respecting an ESTABLISHMENT of religion, i.e., no established religion, it mentions nothing about giving money to religious institutions.
If someone leaves a public school and goes to a private school, that's one less student that the school needs to teach. That's less money the school needs to spend. Meanwhile, that student is entitled to a *good* education IMO, so if (and only if) the school is failing standards, should the student be given the option to take *his* tax money that is in the system and apply it to any school of his choice. It has nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with choice. Vouchers don't just take money from public schools and give them to private schools, they take *students* and money from public schools and give them to private schools. Since students are a large part of cost, they take cost, and the associated money, from the school, therefore, the net result is zero, except the student is in a school of his choice.
Second: abortion has nothing to do with religion. There are plenty of people who disagree with aboriton who are not religious and vice versa. They aren't mutually inclusive.
"You can also manufacture hydrogen through the electrolysis of water. This takes electricity. You get your electricity from burning fossil fuels, which like you suggest, will run out."
Except that clean energy will never solve the problem of finding oil. If we discover a true source of clean energy then we still havent solved the problem of finding an alternative to oil.
Two scenarios. Let's say we are running on oil based ICEs. If we find a clean source of energy, we haven't fixed anything.
Let's say we are running on hydrogen based ICEs and we find a clean source of energy. Then we HAVE solved a problem. In other words, hydrogen based ICEs DO solve a problem in that they solve part of the problem that cars pose.
Forget one of the major problems with cars? Oil is expensive and will run out one day, hydrogen won't. Even if making hydrogen creates harmful emmisions its still better than relying on a car that produces harmful emissions AND relies on a substance that will run out eventually. At least with hydrogen ICEs we won't be running out of fuel.
Re:um... I'd have a different perspective
on
Less Might Be More
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
"Mac itself isn't the problem"
Then what is? The harddrive failed, the video card failed. A computer is the sum of it's parts. The Mac you have now with a different harddrive and video card isn't the same one you bought 5 years ago.
Besides I still have an old 75 mhz Pentium sitting at my parent's that gets regular use and has had *nothing* fail except for a module of expansion RAM I threw in there for my dad that died after 3-4 years.
Except for the small matter that the university *still* has the right to ban the *device* on their property.
The university owns the apartment. Most universities ban things such as pets, hot plates, candles, etc. None of those things are illegal, but the university owns the land and can do as it sees fit. It is not regulating the spectrum, it's regulating the use of a device.
Right now I currently work as a sound tech in college, and I can attest that the "problem" is not just in the computer realm. Very rarely do people care about excellent sound quality, though video quality is almost always something people are picky about. There's probably several reasons for this, but I think a lot of it has to do with people being tone deaf and putting their sight above their hearing in importance.
Slashdot Mirror
I love how you think I'm right winged and republican.
I'm a libertarian, thank you very much.
And how much technological innovation has come from 'socialist' France in the past 50 years? What two countries can you thank for 90% of the technology you are using just to post here? America and Japan: the two most capitalistic countries in the world.
There are incompetent companies, just as there are incompetent governemnt agencies. FedEx, UPS, and DHL are several times better and more reliable than the USPO. Just because Social Security doesn't spend a lot of it's cash on administration doesn't mean its competent. The way they have it set up will make it *impossible* for it to survive past the baby boom. HMOs, however, will.
The only way to truely change a government agency is by revolution or a huge mandate towards a party. With the way politics are right now, niether of those things is going to happen any day soon in America. The way to change incompetence in a capitalism? Stop buying their product. People have done it many times before, and will continue to do so.
Yes, let's compare it to social security, which is so ill concieved that its about to go broke within my generation.
Or how about FDA, taken your Vioxx yet? Or your Celebrex?
The wonderful thing about capitalism is that if the companies aren't competent they won't stand the test of time, unless they are considerably cheaper than alternatives. The same is not true for bureaucracy.
The grandparent said a large percentage, not a large group of people. No matter how many people it is, 1% isn't a large percentage of people, it's a very small percentage.
How do you define "large"
There's probably 1% of the world who would consider 26k a drop in the bucket. Thats more than half the average annual income in the richest country in the world.
I was responding to the *several* comments before mine stating such. Since I couldn't reply to all of them, I decided to post a new thread.
When did he say anything about IE being first or firefox copying IE? He didn't...that's when.
For the last time, Microsoft promised features found in Google Desktop and Spotlight, years ago as part of Longhorn. There are *plenty* of cases where MS steals ideas, but in this case Google and Apple got to the market first with a product MS promised about prior.
Yeah, I'm aware MS didn't invent the idea, but they certainly didn't steal it from Google or Apple.
Democrats not getting involved in any fights? What do you call the Vietnam War?
It's not for changing the background, it's for adding a new background to the list of backgrounds you can pick from in the menu.
And if Hong Kong becomes popular enough, it launches into space!
proof ( P ) Pronunciation Key (prf)
n.
1. The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.
from dictionary.com
Thats how most people see proof, thus its definition as number 1. Here is the scientific explanation, coming in at number 2:
2.
a. The validation of a proposition by application of specified rules, as of induction or deduction, to assumptions, axioms, and sequentially derived conclusions.
b. A statement or argument used in such a validation.
But that definition is still sketchy.
There have been both fathers and grandparents who care for an unborn baby. They go to court to try to stop or prevent an abortion because they want to take care of the child, even promising to adopt the child legally and take care of it 100%. Don't these people care for that unborn baby? And if that's so, youve created a definition of "human" that is VERY easy to change at one's whim, which could easily lead to abuse.
The definition of human, in regards to human rights, should be unstretching. It needs to be some absolute point so there are no abuses of the system.
I agree with your DNA statements, DNA does not make humans.
"experiments are performed to try to confirm that the logical predictions of a theory are indeed the case"
And some may call this "proof" I don't mean proof in the truest scientific or mathematical sense, I mean it like 99% of people mean it, and like the original poster meant it. I think the correct phrase the original poster meant was "there is no evidence that evolution causes speciation". That was clearly the intent, and the response to that should be "yes there is, here is some proof [evidence]" not "science experiments dont try to prove anything!"
Plenty of scienfitific experiments set out to prove something. For a theory to be considered valid there needs to be at least some evidence for the theory, not just the lack of evidence against it. The burden of proof lies on the person making the claim. There's never been any evidence against the existence of a giant invisible mind controlling goat either, it doesn't mean it's a valid scientific theory.
By the way, I'm not saying there isn't evidence supporting evolution, there's plenty of it, I'm just correcting the way you corrected the grandparent.
Is this a joke?
Microsoft announced this idea several *years* ago, as part of Longhorn. While they haven't delivered yet, because well...Longhorn hasn't delivered yet, the idea was still there, and Apple most certainly didn't have Spotlight before that. Furthermore, MS even had the idea of virtual folders that would contain search results, which I hear is also a feature of Spotlight.
Scientists built a car today that doesn't require any fuel at all!!
All you do is put the car in neutral, grab a buddy and stand behind the car. Then, placing your hands on the rear bumper...push. Scientists believe it's such a simple process we may all be getting around in these miracle cars any day now!
Evolution is about life, biological/chemical/ecological life here on earth, not about deities. Oh, you have fragmented sentences.
Here's the difference, and here's why your analogy fails.
There are two types of theft. Theft of a physical object, and theft of labour. Despite what you said about all natural things being free, that's not true. You own a physical item even if it's natural and even if you put no labour in it. Anyway...
The apple pie analogy falls because of the following. Let's say you make 1000 apple pies, and as you said, the sale of each makes up but a fraction of the cost of making all the pies. If I steal a pie, the store can only sell 999 pies. If they sell them for 10 dollars a piece when all the pies are sold they have 10 dollars less.
The problem with your haircut analogy is as follows: The time spent on you was done only to you, and your payment was the only payment for the man's time. If you don't pay, he gets nothing in return, and he is out 10-20 minutes of time.
Now let's use a real analogy. You pay tuition for college. That money goes to the teachers. If there is a class with 30 students in it, in a lecture hall that holds 100, and you, who do not go to that school, decide to sit in during the lecture, have you stolen something? Perhaps, but it is *not* the moral equivalent of running out of a haircut or stealing an apple pie. No one lost because of you being in the lecture hall, but you are taking a service you didn't pay for.
"What we are trying to do with our major brands is to support them in every way possible," Marvel Studios chairman and CEO Avi Arad said. "To support the franchise between sequels, we'll have the animated series, the video games (through Activision) and the merchandise licensing. We are just elated to be reintroducing this huge property." And by "support" they obviously mean "suck dry"
Actually the constitution of America, if you want to throw it around so lightly states that congress shall make no law respecting an ESTABLISHMENT of religion, i.e., no established religion, it mentions nothing about giving money to religious institutions.
If someone leaves a public school and goes to a private school, that's one less student that the school needs to teach. That's less money the school needs to spend. Meanwhile, that student is entitled to a *good* education IMO, so if (and only if) the school is failing standards, should the student be given the option to take *his* tax money that is in the system and apply it to any school of his choice. It has nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with choice. Vouchers don't just take money from public schools and give them to private schools, they take *students* and money from public schools and give them to private schools. Since students are a large part of cost, they take cost, and the associated money, from the school, therefore, the net result is zero, except the student is in a school of his choice.
Second: abortion has nothing to do with religion. There are plenty of people who disagree with aboriton who are not religious and vice versa. They aren't mutually inclusive.
"You can also manufacture hydrogen through the electrolysis of water. This takes electricity. You get your electricity from burning fossil fuels, which like you suggest, will run out." Except that clean energy will never solve the problem of finding oil. If we discover a true source of clean energy then we still havent solved the problem of finding an alternative to oil. Two scenarios. Let's say we are running on oil based ICEs. If we find a clean source of energy, we haven't fixed anything. Let's say we are running on hydrogen based ICEs and we find a clean source of energy. Then we HAVE solved a problem. In other words, hydrogen based ICEs DO solve a problem in that they solve part of the problem that cars pose.
Forget one of the major problems with cars? Oil is expensive and will run out one day, hydrogen won't. Even if making hydrogen creates harmful emmisions its still better than relying on a car that produces harmful emissions AND relies on a substance that will run out eventually. At least with hydrogen ICEs we won't be running out of fuel.
"Mac itself isn't the problem"
Then what is? The harddrive failed, the video card failed. A computer is the sum of it's parts. The Mac you have now with a different harddrive and video card isn't the same one you bought 5 years ago.
Besides I still have an old 75 mhz Pentium sitting at my parent's that gets regular use and has had *nothing* fail except for a module of expansion RAM I threw in there for my dad that died after 3-4 years.
Except for the small matter that the university *still* has the right to ban the *device* on their property.
The university owns the apartment. Most universities ban things such as pets, hot plates, candles, etc. None of those things are illegal, but the university owns the land and can do as it sees fit. It is not regulating the spectrum, it's regulating the use of a device.
Right now I currently work as a sound tech in college, and I can attest that the "problem" is not just in the computer realm. Very rarely do people care about excellent sound quality, though video quality is almost always something people are picky about. There's probably several reasons for this, but I think a lot of it has to do with people being tone deaf and putting their sight above their hearing in importance.