Isn't that kind of backwards? I seem to recall that Harry Harrison wrote a book (The Ethical Engineer, published in 1964) dedicated to exploring the difference between "ethics" and "morals". Harrison proposed that "ethics" are the rules people use to get by in society, while "morals" are those ethereal, absolute standards that differ from religion to religion, society to society, even generation to generation, yet are commonly considered to be immutable by those who propose inflicting them on others. Based on that, a person could be completely ethical, according to the standards of the society he's living in, while morally being a total scumbag.
None of the materials found at 81 Fremont St. posed a radiological or biological risk, according to the state Department of Environmental Protection. No mercury or poison was found. Some of the compounds are potentially explosive, but no more dangerous than typical household cleaning products. (From the newspaper article)
Despite this admission from the authorities, they STILL stole his property. And you pro-government people are saying they had the right?
Maybe I'm missing something, but please clarify exactly how owning an M16 or something will be of any use when the stormtroopers come to knock down your door. Your house is probably already surrounded by that point. You might take a couple of them with you in that event, but eventually, you're hopelessly outgunned.
"And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say goodbye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling in terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand. The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst; the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!" - The Gulag Archipelago, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
Now, consider how much more effective that defense would be with guns instead of axes, hammers, pokers, etc.
In any case, the meat and bones of the judgment appears to be this, as stated at pages 58 and 60: The weapons protected by the Second Amendment are those that 'were in common use at the time'. However, this appears to extend to 'classes' of weapons, rather than specific designs (for example, semi-automatic and automatic firearms were not around until the middle of the 19th century, and would therefore certainly not have been 'in common use at the time' and would likely be prohibited), so essentially limits the second amendment to pistols and rifles; I am unsure how this would apply to things like submachine guns, assault rifles, and sniper rifles which likely did not even exist as 'classes' at the time; they don't really say, except to say that "It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service -M-16s and the like- may be banned..." which does imply in fact that assault rifles as a class do not survive the 'in common use' test.
Applying this argument to the First Amendment, one could legitimately ban computers, television, telephones, radios, web press, and any other technology that was not "in common use at the time".
The 2nd Amendment, and the rest of the Bill of Rights, apply to ALL PEOPLE. As the framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights stated clearly, the Bill of Rights does not GRANT rights, it merely prohibits the US government from violating rights that ALL PEOPLE have by virtue of being human.
You said no fat person eats an 1800 calorie a day diet. I called you on your bullshit, with personal experience. You followed that by attempting to claim that you had not said what you originally said. Once again, you have committed bullshit. Your further efforts at obfuscation do not conceal the fact that your original claim has been demonstrated to be false.
And, by the way, you clearly did not read my original post, as your "enjoy being fat" shot demonstrates. So what is it? You just don't like being exposed as a bullshitter?
If I were more into politics than science, I would start some movement to have these restrained minorities unite on some website and plan to move in mass to desolate areas where their vote counts heavily. However that is one arduous process that I hope someone else takes on.
You don't see a fat person eating an 1800 calorie diet.
That's complete crap. I see it every day, and the results were (when following the USDA's food recommendations) lack of energy, more susceptibility to illness and infections, and increased vertigo, balance problems, and other neurological symptoms.
That's what happened when my SO and I tried to eat according to the USDA's food pyramid AND limit our intake to about 1600 calories per day (per the doctor's recommendation).
Right now, my partner and I are attempting to change our diet to one that's more in line with the Zone recommendations (mostly because a true high-protein diet is WAY too expensive), but (as has been mentioned by numerous other posters) the cost of fresh vegetables and fruits is so high that eating the USDA's high-starch diet is much more affordable.
Regardless, your claim that fat people do not eat 1800 calories per day is pure concentrated bullcrap.
You will note that I made a clear distinction between corporations which are, as we know them today, the creation of government, and thus enjoy those government interventions you mention, and businesses which are true capitalistic endeavors, do not enjoy the influence government grants, and are forced to survive or fail without those government benefits.
Then how come they're all granted limited liability by the government, and recognized as notional persons in government courts? Obviously, you did not read the post you are commenting to, and thus are not worthy of further response.
The posting headline is misleading: the article author has written a book attempting to debunk global warming. This is not a scientific consensus, but one man pushing a contrary position. Check it out, and make your own evaluation:
Thank you. Now I have more reason to trust the author.
It's sad that you have to point out something that would be glaringly obvious to anyone who read the article, but then again, this is Slashdot, where reading the article has never been a prerequisite for people to make comments about it.
On top of that, your analysis of the overall situation is remarkably more clear-headed than that many who get paid for their analysis.
the highest award that scientists give, a nobel prize, have been given to the global warming researchers. nobel committee consist of top of the field, topmost of the top, top of the flock (insert whatever here) scientists, and they dont give out any prizes to doubtable stuff.
And if you believe this, I have a bridge to sell you. Truth is, the Nobel Prize is nothing more than another political football, and has been for decades. Just look at some of the awards that have been handed out, if you don't believe me.
If you want to see REAL science on the topic of climate change, and not environmentalist religion, look up the work of scientists like Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen, Stephen McIntyre, Stephen Schwartz, Nir Shaviv and JÃn Veizer, Edward Wegman, Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, David Douglass, Kesten Green and J. Scott Armstrong, Roger A. Pielke, and many others.
And, er... we're cutting down the trees at the same time. That's really not a good idea. You seem to forget, we're also planting trees - in some areas, faster than they're being cut down. And, amazingly enough, young trees absorb CO2 a lot more effectively than old trees. I've seen some studies that claim that a tree absorbs as much in its first 20 years of life as it will over the rest of its life, even assuming it lives a couple centuries.
And for the good of the universe I hope one of those extinctions is us. It's not like we won't deserve it either. And I reply, as I always do to this expressed opinion:
If you honestly, truly believe this, why don't you show yourself as a good example and lead the way?
Your problem is not the voters. It's the people in the back room who are counting the votes. As has been demonstrated repeatedly, anyone with access to the vote counting machines can easily tamper with the votes, so unless there is a paper trail that the computerized tally can be verified against, there is no way to prevent vote tampering.
yup - trees - let me take my thought one step further and suggest that sending your newspaper to the landfill rather than recycling it (and I have been diligently for years) might also be a good thing.... Yup. Increase the demand for paper, you increase the number of trees farmed. Since trees do most of their carbon sequestering during their early years, that means that young trees (like the ones in tree farms) are going to take more carbon out of the atmosphere than old trees. Thus, paper farms are a net atmospheric benefit.
The only reason Firefly "made no sense" was because Fox aired the episodes out of order and didn't even bother to air the pilot until AFTER they had canceled the show. Imagine how much sense your favorite novel would make if the publisher had chopped it apart and shuffled the chapters before binding it, then printed the prologue at the END of the book.
The problem is, LJ has also made it clear that the people with journals aren't their customers, the people with journals are their PRODUCT. The ADVERTISERS are their customers.
Sounds to me like a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you expect people to try to screw you, then your behavior will make it clear to them that this is what you expect, and unless they have some overriding reason to do otherwise, they'll be happy to oblige you.
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't that kind of backwards? I seem to recall that Harry Harrison wrote a book ( The Ethical Engineer , published in 1964) dedicated to exploring the difference between "ethics" and "morals". Harrison proposed that "ethics" are the rules people use to get by in society, while "morals" are those ethereal, absolute standards that differ from religion to religion, society to society, even generation to generation, yet are commonly considered to be immutable by those who propose inflicting them on others. Based on that, a person could be completely ethical, according to the standards of the society he's living in, while morally being a total scumbag.
None of the materials found at 81 Fremont St. posed a radiological or biological risk, according to the state Department of Environmental Protection. No mercury or poison was found. Some of the compounds are potentially explosive, but no more dangerous than typical household cleaning products. (From the newspaper article)
Despite this admission from the authorities, they STILL stole his property. And you pro-government people are saying they had the right?
Morons.
How do you explain this? (From TFA):
Authorities concede that the chemicals found in Deeb's basement lab were no more hazardous than typical household cleaning products.
Maybe I'm missing something, but please clarify exactly how owning an M16 or something will be of any use when the stormtroopers come to knock down your door. Your house is probably already surrounded by that point. You might take a couple of them with you in that event, but eventually, you're hopelessly outgunned.
"And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say goodbye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling in terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand. The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst; the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!"
- The Gulag Archipelago, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
Now, consider how much more effective that defense would be with guns instead of axes, hammers, pokers, etc.
In any case, the meat and bones of the judgment appears to be this, as stated at pages 58 and 60: The weapons protected by the Second Amendment are those that 'were in common use at the time'. However, this appears to extend to 'classes' of weapons, rather than specific designs (for example, semi-automatic and automatic firearms were not around until the middle of the 19th century, and would therefore certainly not have been 'in common use at the time' and would likely be prohibited), so essentially limits the second amendment to pistols and rifles; I am unsure how this would apply to things like submachine guns, assault rifles, and sniper rifles which likely did not even exist as 'classes' at the time; they don't really say, except to say that "It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service -M-16s and the like- may be banned..." which does imply in fact that assault rifles as a class do not survive the 'in common use' test.
Applying this argument to the First Amendment, one could legitimately ban computers, television, telephones, radios, web press, and any other technology that was not "in common use at the time".The 2nd Amendment, and the rest of the Bill of Rights, apply to ALL PEOPLE. As the framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights stated clearly, the Bill of Rights does not GRANT rights, it merely prohibits the US government from violating rights that ALL PEOPLE have by virtue of being human.
You said no fat person eats an 1800 calorie a day diet. I called you on your bullshit, with personal experience. You followed that by attempting to claim that you had not said what you originally said. Once again, you have committed bullshit. Your further efforts at obfuscation do not conceal the fact that your original claim has been demonstrated to be false.
And, by the way, you clearly did not read my original post, as your "enjoy being fat" shot demonstrates. So what is it? You just don't like being exposed as a bullshitter?
And I cry bullshit. Clearly, you have no clue what you're talking about.
If I were more into politics than science, I would start some movement to have these restrained minorities unite on some website and plan to move in mass to desolate areas where their vote counts heavily. However that is one arduous process that I hope someone else takes on.
You mean, kind of like these people? http://www.freestateproject.org/
Love the way you backpedal and try to claim something other than what you said, so you're not caught out with your bullshit.
That's complete crap. I see it every day, and the results were (when following the USDA's food recommendations) lack of energy, more susceptibility to illness and infections, and increased vertigo, balance problems, and other neurological symptoms.
That's what happened when my SO and I tried to eat according to the USDA's food pyramid AND limit our intake to about 1600 calories per day (per the doctor's recommendation).
Right now, my partner and I are attempting to change our diet to one that's more in line with the Zone recommendations (mostly because a true high-protein diet is WAY too expensive), but (as has been mentioned by numerous other posters) the cost of fresh vegetables and fruits is so high that eating the USDA's high-starch diet is much more affordable.
Regardless, your claim that fat people do not eat 1800 calories per day is pure concentrated bullcrap.
You will note that I made a clear distinction between corporations which are, as we know them today, the creation of government, and thus enjoy those government interventions you mention, and businesses which are true capitalistic endeavors, do not enjoy the influence government grants, and are forced to survive or fail without those government benefits.
Like most people, you are confusing mercantilism with capitalism. The two are antithetical.
Mercantilism uses government power to the benefit of a few select corporations that influence and/or control governmental representatives.
Capitalism requires all businesses, small, large, and in-between, to survive or fail on their own merits, with no government benefits for any of them.
Thank you. Now I have more reason to trust the author.
It's sad that you have to point out something that would be glaringly obvious to anyone who read the article, but then again, this is Slashdot, where reading the article has never been a prerequisite for people to make comments about it.
On top of that, your analysis of the overall situation is remarkably more clear-headed than that many who get paid for their analysis.
And if you believe this, I have a bridge to sell you. Truth is, the Nobel Prize is nothing more than another political football, and has been for decades. Just look at some of the awards that have been handed out, if you don't believe me.
If you want to see REAL science on the topic of climate change, and not environmentalist religion, look up the work of scientists like Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen, Stephen McIntyre, Stephen Schwartz, Nir Shaviv and JÃn Veizer, Edward Wegman, Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, David Douglass, Kesten Green and J. Scott Armstrong, Roger A. Pielke, and many others.
Your problem is not the voters. It's the people in the back room who are counting the votes. As has been demonstrated repeatedly, anyone with access to the vote counting machines can easily tamper with the votes, so unless there is a paper trail that the computerized tally can be verified against, there is no way to prevent vote tampering.
The only reason Firefly "made no sense" was because Fox aired the episodes out of order and didn't even bother to air the pilot until AFTER they had canceled the show. Imagine how much sense your favorite novel would make if the publisher had chopped it apart and shuffled the chapters before binding it, then printed the prologue at the END of the book.
The problem is, LJ has also made it clear that the people with journals aren't their customers, the people with journals are their PRODUCT. The ADVERTISERS are their customers.
Sounds to me like a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you expect people to try to screw you, then your behavior will make it clear to them that this is what you expect, and unless they have some overriding reason to do otherwise, they'll be happy to oblige you.