You're correct. I was at work at the time, and had to operate on memory. I would have bought SWG when it came out since I was using Station Access at the time, except that it was explicitly not included. Not sure when it got added.
The problem is, Muslim extremists have far more power over than christian extremists do. Examine the public reaction in this country to Pat Robertson compared to the reaction in Iran to the statements of it's president for instace. Polls consistently showed strong support in muslim countries for the known extremist position, although it started dropping once the terroist activities began showing up at home. Granted, the polling itself may be highly flawed in those countries.
Such as? There are examples in the old testament of God meeting out punishment, or encouraging the violent expansion of his chosen people, but nothing in the new testament. I don't think there are sections even in the old testament which advocate slaughtering all non-believers either. I'm willing to be proved wrong on this.
Minor problem with your first example. It's perfectly valid to approve of Capital punishment as an option, while still accepting severe restrictions on it's use. (Higher standard of evidence, self-defense, Deliberate homicide versus manslaughter, any other conditional modifications you can think of that are currently applied.) As long as your reasons for objecting to a particular sentence don't rely on "it's me or my family" then it's not hypoc
Well, in many ways the runtime version of 'runas' is more useful than the right-click version. Personally, I often use 'runas/user:\ cmd' to get a command prompt where every command issued get the same access. Makes it possible to use 'cacls' or 'net user' when non admin for instance.
But what is the ratio of lost jobs in other industries to new jobs in sustatainable sources? It's not valid to look at only one side of the equation. If 1000 people are unemployed due to taxation or artificial limitation on some industry, and some other industry can support 20 new cushy jobs because of the same limitation, it's a net loss. It can go the other way too (Buggy whip manufactureres vs. car manufacturers) but you have to consider both sides, and consider whether the limitation is morally right indepent of the effects as well.
Let's make a deal: You don't have to pay for my health care, I don't have to pay for anyone elses health care. I get to do whatever the hell I want that doesn't harm anyone else. NOTHING gives you the right to use force to prevent someone from making their own choices, even if in your opinion the cost of their choices is higher than the benefit, as long as they aren't imposing that cost on you.
Lardasses, as you put it, are only hurting themselves. It's not their fault you've chosen to cover their medical costs, that's your own damn decision. Just because people like you chose to intrude on society in one way DOES NOT MAKE IT RIGHT FOR YOU TO INTRUDE IN A DIFFERENT WAY! I would argue that the first way is wrong too, for reasons beyond the scope of this discussion.
We're better off with them in the economy doing something productive than pulling the economy down by wasting money.
This is stupid on the face of it. You have no justification for assuming that fat people are a net drain on the econmy.
I beta tested it, but never bought a live version. Largely because between when I started beta and when it went live, they actually went to the effort of making some things worse. It was better conceptually when 90% of the xp from crafting came from people using the item. Some items were not that useful, making it somewhat hard to advance as a crafter. So they changed it so most xp came just from making the item, and IIRC required that other people be the ones to use it. Then, a couple of weeks later, they put in certification requirements, which would have fixed the crafting problem in the first place, but they left crafting as an almost pure grind.
I still remember scavenging for the highest conductivity components I could to make a newbie blaster that was at least twice as good as the standard version. It was possible to make useful versions of normally useless items.
It's not our fault you chose to force everyone to pay for everyone elses healthcare. When medicare, etc were implemented, I'm willing to bet (I have not researched, it just seems plausible) that opponents claimed it would lead to restrictions on liberty, and proponents dismissed those claims and said they had no intention of restricting liberty, irrespective of the fact the forcing A to pay for B's healthcare explicity reduces A's freedom.
Now, of course, people like you use the cost of implementing the programs in a fair non-restrictive manner as an excuse to enact further laws which explicity restrict other's freedom.
If you were only referring to private insurance, than your premise is incorrect. You pay higher premiums for being a high risk individual, not because others are high risk.
None of this changes the fact that the school system shouldn't be using DDR as a health measure. If nothing else, forcing kids to play will take all joy out of the process.
Well, strict interpretation of the Constitution reveals that there is no requirement to get a warrant to intercept phone calls. You might argue that such wiretaps require access to the private property of the phone companies which would require a warrant to search their lines, but that's about the extent of it. If it's a call over a broadcast medium such as cell phones or if the Government owns a line which it is travelling over, it becomes even harder to argue that the constitution protects it, for the same reason they don't need a warrant to listen to someone who's shouting something to their friend in the next yard. Personally, I like the fact that statutue extends further protection from eavesdropping, but the Constitution as written provides no such protection. However, the same set of statutes explictly allow wiretaps for up to 15 days during times of war without intervention by the courts.
In general, extensive privacy rights are not guaranteed by the constituion, are of recent invention, and have not become fully settled law.
But in a country founded on the concept of liberty, I don't need to justify having something. You need to justify taking it away.
In any case, your statement isn't true. There are good reasons for people to have weapons (there may also be good reasons for certain individuals not to have them, but I'll let you argue that point). Defense from dangerous animals and individuals, hunting, hell even even target practice.
The use of guns as a weapon is a great equalizer, so that the strong can't get as much of an edge on the weak. How many 80 year old individuals could reasonably defend themselves from a 20 year old violent criminal using only melee weapons?
Target shooting is an enjoyable sport that happens to involve something easily used as a deadly weapon, whereas baseball is an enjoyable sport that happens to involve something easily used as a not quite as deadly weapon.
There's an excellent program the School District I work for uses called DeepFreeze. Any time you reboot, any and all changes since the last reboot are undone. It's incredibly useful in labs, and allows us to enable admin access for users if we want.
The bicycle example is flawed in that it ignores prior knowledge. With a bicycle, you have met people who have put them together. You may have even seen them assembled and dissasembled. If nothing else, you know that it's possible to build them and people do it all the tiem. Despite having no direct evidence that a random bicycle is man made, it's intelligent to assume that it is because so many are. It's not the complexity in and of itself that points to a creator, but the existence of others like it that have a demonstratable creator.
We have no directly observable instances of any other creators of living organisms, or other universes for comparison. We have no prior knowledge to use for a heuristic, so there is no reason to assume that life was created rather than emerging by chance.
Well, since 'Limited Liability Corporations' are entirely a governmental construct, then it seems quite logical to me that anarchocapitalists would be opposed. Although non-authoritatitve, Wikipedia has a pretty good overview which implies that they would reject any sort of special law for corporations. The limited liability in such a case would only applie to creditors who agreed to abide by the limitation in advance.
Actually, you could only block a site if you were co-located with it, since they have to resolve to the same IP. It could still be abused though.
Registering with a.xxx could be a good pr move, as they can always say "It's trivial to block us if you don't want your kids viewing this."
Sometimes incompetance is worse than evil.
I played EQ for a long time on a PVP server. My entire guild jumped to WOW when it came out, largely because we were tired of the longstanding bugs that never got fixed, and the complete inability to deal with mudflation. Customer support wasn't good with either Verant or SOE, although it was finally starting to improve by the time I left.
I think I should have used something other than "sarcasm" but I couldn't think of a better word off hand. Perhaps "Tongue in Cheek" would have been a better choice. I didn't really intend for it to be deconstructed in any detail.
You have a point on the first assumption, but see above. There were supporters and oppponents of the war on the right as well as the left, and in various other political affiliations that don't fall neatly on a single axis. I think the second assumption I made is better stated as follows: People tend to discuss politics with other people with at least some overlapping political beliefs. I think this is fairly defensible, although I can't really prove it.
In any case, the argument just reminded me of statements like "I don't know how Reagan beat Mondale, I don't know anyone who voted for him".
Slashdot Mirror
The frogurt is also cursed.
2 words... "Compassionate conservative".
You're correct. I was at work at the time, and had to operate on memory. I would have bought SWG when it came out since I was using Station Access at the time, except that it was explicitly not included. Not sure when it got added.
The problem is, Muslim extremists have far more power over than christian extremists do. Examine the public reaction in this country to Pat Robertson compared to the reaction in Iran to the statements of it's president for instace. Polls consistently showed strong support in muslim countries for the known extremist position, although it started dropping once the terroist activities began showing up at home. Granted, the polling itself may be highly flawed in those countries.
Such as? There are examples in the old testament of God meeting out punishment, or encouraging the violent expansion of his chosen people, but nothing in the new testament. I don't think there are sections even in the old testament which advocate slaughtering all non-believers either. I'm willing to be proved wrong on this.
AFAIK, SWG was never covered by the station pass. It definitively was not covered when SWG first came out.
Minor problem with your first example. It's perfectly valid to approve of Capital punishment as an option, while still accepting severe restrictions on it's use. (Higher standard of evidence, self-defense, Deliberate homicide versus manslaughter, any other conditional modifications you can think of that are currently applied.) As long as your reasons for objecting to a particular sentence don't rely on "it's me or my family" then it's not hypoc
Sigh... replace runtime with command line.
Well, in many ways the runtime version of 'runas' is more useful than the right-click version. Personally, I often use 'runas /user:\ cmd' to get a command prompt where every command issued get the same access. Makes it possible to use 'cacls' or 'net user' when non admin for instance.
But what is the ratio of lost jobs in other industries to new jobs in sustatainable sources? It's not valid to look at only one side of the equation. If 1000 people are unemployed due to taxation or artificial limitation on some industry, and some other industry can support 20 new cushy jobs because of the same limitation, it's a net loss. It can go the other way too (Buggy whip manufactureres vs. car manufacturers) but you have to consider both sides, and consider whether the limitation is morally right indepent of the effects as well.
Let's make a deal: You don't have to pay for my health care, I don't have to pay for anyone elses health care. I get to do whatever the hell I want that doesn't harm anyone else. NOTHING gives you the right to use force to prevent someone from making their own choices, even if in your opinion the cost of their choices is higher than the benefit, as long as they aren't imposing that cost on you.
Lardasses, as you put it, are only hurting themselves. It's not their fault you've chosen to cover their medical costs, that's your own damn decision. Just because people like you chose to intrude on society in one way DOES NOT MAKE IT RIGHT FOR YOU TO INTRUDE IN A DIFFERENT WAY! I would argue that the first way is wrong too, for reasons beyond the scope of this discussion.
We're better off with them in the economy doing something productive than pulling the economy down by wasting money.
This is stupid on the face of it. You have no justification for assuming that fat people are a net drain on the econmy.
Mudflation like this is exactly what sent EQ into a slow death spiral, especially in PvP.
I beta tested it, but never bought a live version. Largely because between when I started beta and when it went live, they actually went to the effort of making some things worse. It was better conceptually when 90% of the xp from crafting came from people using the item. Some items were not that useful, making it somewhat hard to advance as a crafter. So they changed it so most xp came just from making the item, and IIRC required that other people be the ones to use it. Then, a couple of weeks later, they put in certification requirements, which would have fixed the crafting problem in the first place, but they left crafting as an almost pure grind. I still remember scavenging for the highest conductivity components I could to make a newbie blaster that was at least twice as good as the standard version. It was possible to make useful versions of normally useless items.
It's not our fault you chose to force everyone to pay for everyone elses healthcare. When medicare, etc were implemented, I'm willing to bet (I have not researched, it just seems plausible) that opponents claimed it would lead to restrictions on liberty, and proponents dismissed those claims and said they had no intention of restricting liberty, irrespective of the fact the forcing A to pay for B's healthcare explicity reduces A's freedom.
Now, of course, people like you use the cost of implementing the programs in a fair non-restrictive manner as an excuse to enact further laws which explicity restrict other's freedom.
If you were only referring to private insurance, than your premise is incorrect. You pay higher premiums for being a high risk individual, not because others are high risk.
None of this changes the fact that the school system shouldn't be using DDR as a health measure. If nothing else, forcing kids to play will take all joy out of the process.
Well, strict interpretation of the Constitution reveals that there is no requirement to get a warrant to intercept phone calls. You might argue that such wiretaps require access to the private property of the phone companies which would require a warrant to search their lines, but that's about the extent of it. If it's a call over a broadcast medium such as cell phones or if the Government owns a line which it is travelling over, it becomes even harder to argue that the constitution protects it, for the same reason they don't need a warrant to listen to someone who's shouting something to their friend in the next yard. Personally, I like the fact that statutue extends further protection from eavesdropping, but the Constitution as written provides no such protection. However, the same set of statutes explictly allow wiretaps for up to 15 days during times of war without intervention by the courts.
In general, extensive privacy rights are not guaranteed by the constituion, are of recent invention, and have not become fully settled law.
But in a country founded on the concept of liberty, I don't need to justify having something. You need to justify taking it away.
In any case, your statement isn't true. There are good reasons for people to have weapons (there may also be good reasons for certain individuals not to have them, but I'll let you argue that point). Defense from dangerous animals and individuals, hunting, hell even even target practice.
The use of guns as a weapon is a great equalizer, so that the strong can't get as much of an edge on the weak. How many 80 year old individuals could reasonably defend themselves from a 20 year old violent criminal using only melee weapons?
Target shooting is an enjoyable sport that happens to involve something easily used as a deadly weapon, whereas baseball is an enjoyable sport that happens to involve something easily used as a not quite as deadly weapon.
We have a Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq and a more generic S.J. Resolution 23 - Authorization for Use of Military Force for militar actions against anyone event tangetialy involved with 9/11. What red tape has been bypassed? They didn't use the words "declare war", and they didn't list specific countries, but the president didn't just go out an act.
There's an excellent program the School District I work for uses called DeepFreeze. Any time you reboot, any and all changes since the last reboot are undone. It's incredibly useful in labs, and allows us to enable admin access for users if we want.
The bicycle example is flawed in that it ignores prior knowledge. With a bicycle, you have met people who have put them together. You may have even seen them assembled and dissasembled. If nothing else, you know that it's possible to build them and people do it all the tiem. Despite having no direct evidence that a random bicycle is man made, it's intelligent to assume that it is because so many are. It's not the complexity in and of itself that points to a creator, but the existence of others like it that have a demonstratable creator.
We have no directly observable instances of any other creators of living organisms, or other universes for comparison. We have no prior knowledge to use for a heuristic, so there is no reason to assume that life was created rather than emerging by chance.
Plutonium is really not very toxic. See here for a quick overview and here for a more detailed view of the radiation danger in particular.
As near as I can tell, chemical toxicity is barely a concern, and radioactive concerns are vastly overblown.
Good point. I for some reason hadn't considered purchasing a name and pointing it an an IP I didn't have access to.
Well, since 'Limited Liability Corporations' are entirely a governmental construct, then it seems quite logical to me that anarchocapitalists would be opposed. Although non-authoritatitve, Wikipedia has a pretty good overview which implies that they would reject any sort of special law for corporations. The limited liability in such a case would only applie to creditors who agreed to abide by the limitation in advance.
Actually, you could only block a site if you were co-located with it, since they have to resolve to the same IP. It could still be abused though. Registering with a .xxx could be a good pr move, as they can always say "It's trivial to block us if you don't want your kids viewing this."
Sometimes incompetance is worse than evil. I played EQ for a long time on a PVP server. My entire guild jumped to WOW when it came out, largely because we were tired of the longstanding bugs that never got fixed, and the complete inability to deal with mudflation. Customer support wasn't good with either Verant or SOE, although it was finally starting to improve by the time I left.
I think I should have used something other than "sarcasm" but I couldn't think of a better word off hand. Perhaps "Tongue in Cheek" would have been a better choice. I didn't really intend for it to be deconstructed in any detail.
You have a point on the first assumption, but see above. There were supporters and oppponents of the war on the right as well as the left, and in various other political affiliations that don't fall neatly on a single axis. I think the second assumption I made is better stated as follows: People tend to discuss politics with other people with at least some overlapping political beliefs. I think this is fairly defensible, although I can't really prove it.
In any case, the argument just reminded me of statements like "I don't know how Reagan beat Mondale, I don't know anyone who voted for him".