Actually we were at war with Taiwan. Taiwan stopped being part of the Chinese Empire a long time ago - back while Spain controlled Cuba and the Chicago Cubs still had a World Series victory in their future.
Use of science must be balanced with recognitions of its limits
1. Recognize the inherent limits of science - science can tell us a lot about what is but not much about what should be, what is right and wrong - also science is limited to observations of the physical world as it is.
2. Recognize the limits of the state-of-the-art. Psychology is still in its infancy and should not be too heavily relied on. Other sciences have plenty of room for doubt as well. For example, while long term climate change seems pretty likely, there is still a lot of doubt about what the long-term effects will be.
3. Recognize that scientists are people and many - particularly the most vocal - are likely to have their own agenda and/or selfish motivations.
That being said, I dunno why other people seem to have some apprehension as to why they don't think they'd unload on someone to protect themselves, their family or property.
Simple, doubt about whether the person is really a threat. You see someone chasing your son and hitting him on the back and shoulders - it turns out they were being chased by hornets and the guy was trying to knock the hornets off your son's back. (A year ago I was seen chasing someone's kid and hitting him for that very reason.)
You wake up in the middle of the night to investigate a noise - you see someone hunched over your wife who fell asleep on the couch - he turns and approaches you - is that your teen-aged son or an intruder. You go to your teen-aged daughters room and see a man - intruder or ill-behaved daughter's boyfriend?
You come home during the day and find a man in your house. He turns to face you and he has a large metal object that could be used as a wrench. Intruder or did your wife call the plumber?
Now these decisions aren't terribly hard, but the cost of making the wrong decision and shooting to kill an innocent are so enormous that most sane people will pause to make sure they're right before pulling the trigger. That's enough time for a bad guy who is much less likely to hesitate.
So the parent is right. If you're going to carry, get some good training like the police do to decide when to shoot and when not to - training that includes practice.
Licensed engineers have to pass a test demonstrating their command of a field of engineering. With software engineering's rate of change, who would maintain such a test from month to month?
Other engineering fields build the same thing over and over. Designing another house? Those 2x4s of southern pine are pretty much the same as they've been for decades. The drywall that goes over it hasn't changed much either. There is a well-established set of guidelines you memorize and stick to - and you don't even have to design the whole house, just the part you specialize in, e.g. electrical, structural. Nor do you have to build the house, the construction workers do that.
You want to know what engineering is like in a field where the technology and the architecture change rapidly? Imagine you got your engineering degree 3000 years ago and your first assignment was to design and build a thatched hut. A year later you were told to design and build a Greek temple. 2 years later your assignment is to design and build the Roman Colosseum. A year later it's a Gothic church. 2 years later a Yankee Clipper. For each job you're re-using skills, but you're having to learn about new technologies and apply them for the first time.
Maybe you should start a separate internet with all of the countries in the General Assembly; it would a great way to test the hypothesis that pure democracy is inherently beneficial for individual rights.
How would such a test say anything about pure democracy? Not that many of the countries in the General Assembly are democracies, and none of them are pure democracies.
The UN isn't elected by people, it is made up of governments - many or most of which rule by fear rather than by legitimate democratic means.
A UN convention is more often a taint than an indicator of good intentions.
"otherwise the UN, who will, at least recognise my inherent rights" Is this the same UN that recognizes the inherent right of the People's Republic of China to do whatever is necessary to take away the freedoms of the people of Taiwan?
The article suggests that the problem is how to label the parts. That seems like the wrong question to me. If it were efficient to take the stuff apart then it would quickly become either automated or the people doing it would learn to recognize by appearance which parts are made of what in each kind of appliance.
Isn't the real problem that the electronics are too hard to break up? In some devices it is nearly impossible just to get to the battery - and the devices are purposefully made difficult to disassemble. Making them easy to disassemble to separate out the various materials would make recycling much easier. I don't know if there is money to be made by persuading electronics manufacturers to incorporate this into their designs, but it would sure help the environment and the long-term sustainability of electronics manufacturing.
How ironic that you would start with words that are clearly designed to be offensive while defending the government's ability to punish people for being offensive.
For example, the constitution of my country doesn't contain anything about "Free speech" but instead states that people have the "freedom of opinion, expression and assembly".
This is one reason I like the US Constitution better, but unfortunately the Supreme Court has failed to understand the difference and has in effect re-written the US Constitution to be like your country's.
The difference is this:
A person can express his feelings and opinions many ways - punching girlfriends, shooting a dog, making films that violate community standards, urinating on public statues, walking around in public without clothes, giving people the finger...
The US Constitution as written protects none of that - it protects speech and the press (which given technological changes can be understood to include other word media).
But our Supreme Court decided to rewrite that to mean "expression" so we have this strange system where strip joints are protected by the first amendment but spending money on political speech may not be.
This is actually easier than the question of trolling dead soldier's funerals. The protesters in that case could occupy public property - a sidewalk or a government owned cemetery - to hurt people's feelings. However in this case the troller posted to a privately owned website. The owner can simply remove the offending post and beginning moderating future posts before they are made public. (if a publicly owned website was used then... why was a publicly owned website used?)
The difference is that capitalism expects greed and attempts to use it for benefit. Communism's base idea is that greed can be suppressed.
Where Communism sees too much rain and attempts to dam it up forever, capitalism sees to much rain and tries to channel as much as possible toward making electricity, so that the dam doesn't need to be as high.
Communism has to suppress normal everyday human nature. Capitalism only needs to suppress the extremes.
So we have to assume if a teacher or football coach or principal leads a class, football team or entire school in prayer that person would be similarly entitled to immunity?
Interesting quote from TFA:
In the 1994 case, the Ninth Circuit ruled that religious neutrality required that the biology teacher’s positive views of religious ideas must be excluded from public school instruction. But in 2011, a different panel of the Ninth Circuit ruled that the history teacher’s hostile views of religion and faith must be permitted to protect the “robust exchange of ideas in education.”
It looks like the Ninth Circuit is hostile to religion and faith. They clearly didn't get that from the First Amendment.
What does treating women as equals and a Jew being able to walk around without discrimination have to do with being able to trust a country?
Far more important is a commitment to democracy, rule of law, and religious freedom from the government and the majority of citizens. Actually, rule of law and religious freedom are integral parts of democracy so really this is about commitment to real democracy.
No country has a culture that truly treats women as equals, and most countries - even most of our allies - don't treaty women as equals in law. And in most countries - even our allies - Jews face discrimination when they walk around because of the culture.
I've heard that even in parts of the US, such as the the northeast, Jews continue to face discrimination.
From TFA: "Rather than an open World Wide Web, most people would have remained on proprietary, walled gardens, like AOL, Compuserve, Prodigy and Delphi. While those might have eventually run afoul of the patents, since they were large companies or backed by large companies, those would have been the few willing to pay the licensing fee."
Proprietary systems would have competed to keep their networks clean. Fewer viruses. No virus protection systems slowing down my computer
I hear that a lot but then I don't meet very many people willing to do the work they are doing.
Well, at least not at the wages the corporate owners want to pay them. Illegal immigration basically pits rich corporate owners against the poor. The owners win by bringing in scabs thereby keeping wages low.
The difference between the old Republicans and the Tea Party is the Tea Party wants to keep the promises the Republicans have been making and breaking for the last 30 years.
Walt Disney produced the greatest comic book character ever: Carl Barks' Scrooge McDuck. Spider-man was great, but he was distant second to the richest duck in all of Duckburg (and the world).
The world would be a better place if more kids were introduced to the old Scrooge McDuck comics at an impressionable age.
So if there happens to be a cop in or near the car that you didn't see for some reason, and he sees you pointing a gunshaped object at his car (close enough to him that you might be pointing at him) do you expect him to wait until you shoot so he can be sure whether you're shooting a cap gun, paint gun, or bullet gun?
Pointing a paintball gun at a cop car is a good way to get yourself killed.
In this case I don't think a corp ought to be doing it either. But in general the government should have more restrictions than a corporation because 1. you don't have a choice about whether your money goes to the government and 2. the government gets to use force to make you do what it wants you to do.
"I think it's time to decide either way and make the choice apply to everyone..." That's exactly the problem - too many people think all the government's choices should apply to everyone. In reality most government choices should only apply to the government.
Slashdot Mirror
Did the senators not take an oath to uphold the constitution? What is wrong with these people?
The senators are Democrats and it's a living Constitution!
Senators Want To Make Free Speech A Privilege 52
Why does it not surprise me that the senators are all Democrats?
Actually we were at war with Taiwan. Taiwan stopped being part of the Chinese Empire a long time ago - back while Spain controlled Cuba and the Chicago Cubs still had a World Series victory in their future.
Use of science must be balanced with recognitions of its limits
1. Recognize the inherent limits of science - science can tell us a lot about what is but not much about what should be, what is right and wrong - also science is limited to observations of the physical world as it is.
2. Recognize the limits of the state-of-the-art. Psychology is still in its infancy and should not be too heavily relied on. Other sciences have plenty of room for doubt as well. For example, while long term climate change seems pretty likely, there is still a lot of doubt about what the long-term effects will be.
3. Recognize that scientists are people and many - particularly the most vocal - are likely to have their own agenda and/or selfish motivations.
Simple, doubt about whether the person is really a threat. You see someone chasing your son and hitting him on the back and shoulders - it turns out they were being chased by hornets and the guy was trying to knock the hornets off your son's back. (A year ago I was seen chasing someone's kid and hitting him for that very reason.)
You wake up in the middle of the night to investigate a noise - you see someone hunched over your wife who fell asleep on the couch - he turns and approaches you - is that your teen-aged son or an intruder. You go to your teen-aged daughters room and see a man - intruder or ill-behaved daughter's boyfriend?
You come home during the day and find a man in your house. He turns to face you and he has a large metal object that could be used as a wrench. Intruder or did your wife call the plumber?
Now these decisions aren't terribly hard, but the cost of making the wrong decision and shooting to kill an innocent are so enormous that most sane people will pause to make sure they're right before pulling the trigger. That's enough time for a bad guy who is much less likely to hesitate.
So the parent is right. If you're going to carry, get some good training like the police do to decide when to shoot and when not to - training that includes practice.
Licensed engineers have to pass a test demonstrating their command of a field of engineering. With software engineering's rate of change, who would maintain such a test from month to month?
Other engineering fields build the same thing over and over. Designing another house? Those 2x4s of southern pine are pretty much the same as they've been for decades. The drywall that goes over it hasn't changed much either. There is a well-established set of guidelines you memorize and stick to - and you don't even have to design the whole house, just the part you specialize in, e.g. electrical, structural. Nor do you have to build the house, the construction workers do that.
You want to know what engineering is like in a field where the technology and the architecture change rapidly? Imagine you got your engineering degree 3000 years ago and your first assignment was to design and build a thatched hut. A year later you were told to design and build a Greek temple. 2 years later your assignment is to design and build the Roman Colosseum. A year later it's a Gothic church. 2 years later a Yankee Clipper. For each job you're re-using skills, but you're having to learn about new technologies and apply them for the first time.
Maybe you should start a separate internet with all of the countries in the General Assembly; it would a great way to test the hypothesis that pure democracy is inherently beneficial for individual rights.
How would such a test say anything about pure democracy? Not that many of the countries in the General Assembly are democracies, and none of them are pure democracies.
The UN isn't elected by people, it is made up of governments - many or most of which rule by fear rather than by legitimate democratic means.
A UN convention is more often a taint than an indicator of good intentions.
"otherwise the UN, who will, at least recognise my inherent rights" Is this the same UN that recognizes the inherent right of the People's Republic of China to do whatever is necessary to take away the freedoms of the people of Taiwan?
"The UN would be the best way to protect from any bad government."
The UN is made up of mostly bad governments. Why would they protect from themselves?
The UN isn't elected by people, it is made up of governments - many or most of which rule by fear rather than by legitimate democratic means.
So then why would labeling the components be as beneficial as TFA suggests?
The article suggests that the problem is how to label the parts. That seems like the wrong question to me. If it were efficient to take the stuff apart then it would quickly become either automated or the people doing it would learn to recognize by appearance which parts are made of what in each kind of appliance.
Isn't the real problem that the electronics are too hard to break up? In some devices it is nearly impossible just to get to the battery - and the devices are purposefully made difficult to disassemble. Making them easy to disassemble to separate out the various materials would make recycling much easier. I don't know if there is money to be made by persuading electronics manufacturers to incorporate this into their designs, but it would sure help the environment and the long-term sustainability of electronics manufacturing.
How ironic that you would start with words that are clearly designed to be offensive while defending the government's ability to punish people for being offensive.
For example, the constitution of my country doesn't contain anything about "Free speech" but instead states that people have the "freedom of opinion, expression and assembly".
This is one reason I like the US Constitution better, but unfortunately the Supreme Court has failed to understand the difference and has in effect re-written the US Constitution to be like your country's. The difference is this:
A person can express his feelings and opinions many ways - punching girlfriends, shooting a dog, making films that violate community standards, urinating on public statues, walking around in public without clothes, giving people the finger...
The US Constitution as written protects none of that - it protects speech and the press (which given technological changes can be understood to include other word media).
But our Supreme Court decided to rewrite that to mean "expression" so we have this strange system where strip joints are protected by the first amendment but spending money on political speech may not be.
This is actually easier than the question of trolling dead soldier's funerals. The protesters in that case could occupy public property - a sidewalk or a government owned cemetery - to hurt people's feelings. However in this case the troller posted to a privately owned website. The owner can simply remove the offending post and beginning moderating future posts before they are made public. (if a publicly owned website was used then... why was a publicly owned website used?)
Green card? What for? Ever hear of the Rio Grande?
The difference is that capitalism expects greed and attempts to use it for benefit. Communism's base idea is that greed can be suppressed.
Where Communism sees too much rain and attempts to dam it up forever, capitalism sees to much rain and tries to channel as much as possible toward making electricity, so that the dam doesn't need to be as high.
Communism has to suppress normal everyday human nature. Capitalism only needs to suppress the extremes.
Interesting quote from TFA:
In the 1994 case, the Ninth Circuit ruled that religious neutrality required that the biology teacher’s positive views of religious ideas must be excluded from public school instruction. But in 2011, a different panel of the Ninth Circuit ruled that the history teacher’s hostile views of religion and faith must be permitted to protect the “robust exchange of ideas in education.”
It looks like the Ninth Circuit is hostile to religion and faith. They clearly didn't get that from the First Amendment.
What does treating women as equals and a Jew being able to walk around without discrimination have to do with being able to trust a country?
Far more important is a commitment to democracy, rule of law, and religious freedom from the government and the majority of citizens. Actually, rule of law and religious freedom are integral parts of democracy so really this is about commitment to real democracy.
No country has a culture that truly treats women as equals, and most countries - even most of our allies - don't treaty women as equals in law. And in most countries - even our allies - Jews face discrimination when they walk around because of the culture.
I've heard that even in parts of the US, such as the the northeast, Jews continue to face discrimination.
From TFA: "Rather than an open World Wide Web, most people would have remained on proprietary, walled gardens, like AOL, Compuserve, Prodigy and Delphi. While those might have eventually run afoul of the patents, since they were large companies or backed by large companies, those would have been the few willing to pay the licensing fee."
Proprietary systems would have competed to keep their networks clean. Fewer viruses. No virus protection systems slowing down my computer
I hear that a lot but then I don't meet very many people willing to do the work they are doing.
Well, at least not at the wages the corporate owners want to pay them. Illegal immigration basically pits rich corporate owners against the poor. The owners win by bringing in scabs thereby keeping wages low.
The difference between the old Republicans and the Tea Party is the Tea Party wants to keep the promises the Republicans have been making and breaking for the last 30 years.
Walt Disney produced the greatest comic book character ever: Carl Barks' Scrooge McDuck. Spider-man was great, but he was distant second to the richest duck in all of Duckburg (and the world).
The world would be a better place if more kids were introduced to the old Scrooge McDuck comics at an impressionable age.
So if there happens to be a cop in or near the car that you didn't see for some reason, and he sees you pointing a gunshaped object at his car (close enough to him that you might be pointing at him) do you expect him to wait until you shoot so he can be sure whether you're shooting a cap gun, paint gun, or bullet gun?
Pointing a paintball gun at a cop car is a good way to get yourself killed.
In this case I don't think a corp ought to be doing it either. But in general the government should have more restrictions than a corporation because 1. you don't have a choice about whether your money goes to the government and 2. the government gets to use force to make you do what it wants you to do. "I think it's time to decide either way and make the choice apply to everyone..." That's exactly the problem - too many people think all the government's choices should apply to everyone. In reality most government choices should only apply to the government.
China will not limit themselves to economic weapons.
Citation needed.
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2009/02/15/2003436194
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_Tibet_into_the_People's_Republic_of_China
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2011/07/14/2003508170
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2731411/posts
http://www.defence.pk/forums/china-defence/93916-vietnam-protests-chinas-military-exercise-south-china-sea.html