Good point, I suppose. It's odd though - I don't really like the taste of them, but they are appealing for some reason. Maybe just the picture on the box:D
Elohim? Very original. That would be the Hebrew plural - or superlative, can be used both ways - for God. "El" is God, Elohim is the plural or superlative.
The fact that you can taste the plastic container in the food is something
Based on the fact that most people don't notice the bad taste of the frozen food itself in the plastic container that they cook in the microwave, I doubt they notice the taste of the plastic...
Chances are, if you're pulled over for going less than 10mph over the speed limit, the speeding is just a pretext for checking you out for other reasons, but they can always fall back on the speeding charge as the probable cause for digging deeper. Somewhat clever government CYA, if you ask me;)
I certainly won't defend anyone who misuses/abuses power or whatever. I can say that I've had one ticket, and it was for less than 10mph, and there was nothing else asked. No are-you-drunk, no drug check, etc.
Anyways, yes, I guess it would be true that they can... fall back on "speeding" as the cause. But out of curiosity, why is that bad? So, let's say they are speeding. Does the cop even SEE the person when you whiz by? Especially with tinted windows, etc? So if someone gets pulled over and ends up doing those other checks which they fail...
Then, in my mind, they were breaking the law in other ways. It started with speeding. So what? Should running stop signs not be illegal, either? Or we could make "California" stops okay... or, you don't really have to come to a complete stop but have to go under 5mph...
Slightly silly examples towards the end there, but the point is that I am very leery of defending any sort of criminal behavior simply because it was found out in a perhaps less ethical way.
And "racial profiling" seems to be one of those push-the-button-for-scandal words. It is (not referring to you, just ranting now:) ) thrown around as if anytime race is involved in a police decision, it's wrong... even IF the police department is looking for a middle-aged hispanic man, they shouldn't racially profile.
I understand the issue - basing your suspicions generically on someone's race because of some other guy of that race - but it gets pretty wacko sometimes.
(and, to be fair, there definitely very unfortunate examples of cops abusing their power; I think that's detestable and believe they should be treated fairly - which includes justice - like non-cops. It does get rather difficult though, when it seems everyone is claiming racial profiling (even though they WERE guilty of what they were accused of), mental issues (I have a mental problem, so it's okay if I shoot the police officer in the face when he comes to my car window), etc. It makes it difficult to get through what's really a problem and what isn't.
Not just revenue, but since everyone is always "speeding" (as most traffic seems to cruise at about 9mph over the limit, above which you can actually get points) , then the police can still pretty much pull over whomever they like (based on racial profiling or whatever). So it's a nice arrangement.
Uhhh. What? So because everyone is speeding, you're accusing them of racial profiling... by default?
Seems to me the color of the car would be a more apt thing to accuse them of. There have been studies on that, at least.
On the other hand, the speed limits are also probably set 10mph too slow, since they still have to apply to elderly drivers, and in poor weather conditions (though really people should drive slower if they can't see through the torrential downpour / dense fog).
"People should driver slower"... you're right. But they don't. Well, depending on where you are in the country. As for 10mph too slow, what is that based on, out of curiosity? If it's based on the fact that people go around 9mph over because that's what they can get away with without serious issues, then giving them another 10mph means they will go approximately 10mph faster... still maintaining there +9mph speed.
But I could see lawsuits coming if they raised speed limits to reasonable levels, but then some dork wipes out on a turn and sues the state because they were trying to "keep up" with the posted limits.
You say that as though speeding can never be stupid.
Speeding in bad areas, bad conditions, bad visibility, etc., are all very dangerous.
The faster you go, the less control you have. The less control you have + distractions (oops, spilled my coke, but I can bend down and continue to drive without looking while I pick it up... because I'm cool in my car with the extra loud muffler and hip-hop beats that make my fender buzz) is pretty dangerous. I have been in many situations where, if *I* had not been aware of what was going on by some stupid driver that was speeding + distracted (and usually doing other stupid things, granted), there would have been accidents. And the driver never knew.
Because when the speed limit goes up, people suddenly decide they will follow it. In fact, most people go 75 on the freeway because that's the comfortable speed for them. It has no basis on the fact that most people feel they can get away with 5-10 mph above the speed limit.
Which is why when the speed limit is raised to 70, people still happily chug along at 75.
Regardless, this all ignores the point of speed limits: safety. If you can prove to me that going 80 or 85 is not really any more dangerous with our current cars, current drivers, etc., than going 65, then please do. If you can't, then it seems to me you just don't want to go in trouble for going faster than the speed limit allows.
And yes, the choice is a problem, too. However, I would argue that we simply don't have a backbone right now to actually stand up to what we don't like. Even within the two parties, there are varying candidates. There have been, from my short span of following politics (I'm not that old yet, hehe), some candidates for various offices that haven't quite been typical party-affiliated politicians.
The problem seems to me to be a combination of apathy, of believing whatever "big media" tells you, and not bothering to look up what politicians tell you. And it's cyclical. The more apathetic you get, the more likely you're going to just believe whatever you see/read... and if you're not likely to vote in the first place because you don't really care, you're not likely to get upset about things either...
I would argue that apathy is a problem that we can fix. And I'd argue that until we fix it, it doesn't matter what else gets fixed. Hooray, a fair voting system... that nobody uses because they don't care. Hooray, a fair government... that nobody participates in because they don't care. Hooray, fair media!... that nobody watches because they want to watch people get embarrassed on American Idol.
If the people don't care, a democracy won't work, no matter how good the government is set up.
(I think we still basically agree, I'd just emphasize apathy as a big part of the problem AND a problem that can be directly fixed by the voters, because it's their problem in the first place:) )
You seem to leave them out of the picture. It's not like a democracy works with the people don't do anything.
What if we actually voted er, upright politicians into office that didn't get swayed/purchased by corporations? etc. It's not like w ewere voting in good, quality politicians and all doing our civic duty, spending responsibly, etc., and WHAM - a corporation-bought government of corrupt politicians showed up.
Yes, let's put blame where it belongs. But let's not forget that the voters are somewhat to blame, too. If you get told a bunch of "facts" that are false, and you don't even bother to THINK about them let alone look them up and verify them, then you have some blame as well as the person lying to you.
Just look at the responses you get to various things in politics. People respond emotionally and vote. It seems that people forget they should think about these things and vote rationally. Instead, we vote for so-and-so because he says he will kill BP, and we vote for so-and-so because we hate Bush, and we vote for so-and-so because they think Obama isn't a US Citizen. We support impeaching Obama and don't even know that impeachment is for something illegal. We all accuse Bush of warmongering in Iraq even though most of the Senate voted for it.
In short, we have a tendency to simply believe whatever someone tells us. We don't think and we don't vote. And then we get mad that our government doesn't care about us anymore.
To put it bluntly (and I'm not referring to you directly, of course): if you tell me you care about the government but you don't vote and don't think, then I refuse to believe you.
It'd be like saying you love your wife but given the opportunity, never spend any time with her because it's too much effort.
What's so ironic is that now it's even easier to GET information and easier to think, and yet it seems the tendency is to think less and verify less.
As another user pointed out, IE upgrades are not forced. They are perhaps put into the "recommended" (but I think they are in "optional," now I don't remember) updates, but you are not forced to upgrade. I can run XP SP3 and click "No" when it asks if I want IE8, and nothing bad has happened.
I agree, there definitely other proposed bases for ethics, and it's not reasonable to say it's the only backing for ethics. I'd argue it's the most rational, but certainly would not argue it's the only proposed or even only rational one.
Appreciation is subjective. Calling an action inherently wrong would imply that it's wrong for others to do as well, but they don't necessarily share my appreciation.
Well to be fair, I don't know where I gave evolution human characteristics. To quote:
isn't killing off of species by other species part of evolution?
If evolution is a process, then certain things happen in that process - including death/killing - and thus are part of that process. I wasn't actually implying, that I'm aware of, any intelligence or human characteristic.
Yes, I could have just asked point-blank where morality comes from, but I find it more interesting to force the question from the basis. People very easily argue for two viewpoints and never connect the two.
That last bit wasn't aimed at any particular adherent to any particular belief, theory, etc., either. Everyone does it. It seems that holding to two views that don't really mingle very well is a human thing to do, hehe.
But we can ask the question: Is our wanton destruction of many of the ecosystems on earth a desirable thing?
Interesting. I'd certainly argue it's not. Good point.
Quibbling over whether it is properly described as natural or not sort of misses the point.
Granted. On the other hand, it's not a moral issue, in this case. It's a survival-of-our-race issue, in this case?
My underlying point is that many seem to hold to two opposing ideas, IMO...
1. There is no God, and evolution is how everything got here.
2. It's wrong to destroy species, etc. There's some moral/ethical/inherently-bad thing about it.
To me, there's a disconnect. #1 has some amount of backing (evolutionary theory). #2, combined with #1, seems to me to have no backing.
However, if it's simply a desirable or undesirable thing, that's a different argument, which I was not thinking about.
Due to my own beliefs, I actually think we are responsible to take care of the environment, and thus it CAN be actually wrong to kill off species.. or, as you aptly put it, wanton destruction.
Slashdot Mirror
You're right... I didn't notice it. ;)
Good point, I suppose. It's odd though - I don't really like the taste of them, but they are appealing for some reason. Maybe just the picture on the box :D
Elohim? Very original. That would be the Hebrew plural - or superlative, can be used both ways - for God. "El" is God, Elohim is the plural or superlative.
I wonder how much he/the at the site make.
dental amalgam mercury.
You mean the controversy where most people agree that it leeches mercury into the mouth... the question is, how much?
The fact that you can taste the plastic container in the food is something
Based on the fact that most people don't notice the bad taste of the frozen food itself in the plastic container that they cook in the microwave, I doubt they notice the taste of the plastic...
Chances are, if you're pulled over for going less than 10mph over the speed limit, the speeding is just a pretext for checking you out for other reasons, but they can always fall back on the speeding charge as the probable cause for digging deeper. Somewhat clever government CYA, if you ask me ;)
I certainly won't defend anyone who misuses/abuses power or whatever. I can say that I've had one ticket, and it was for less than 10mph, and there was nothing else asked. No are-you-drunk, no drug check, etc.
Anyways, yes, I guess it would be true that they can ... fall back on "speeding" as the cause. But out of curiosity, why is that bad? So, let's say they are speeding. Does the cop even SEE the person when you whiz by? Especially with tinted windows, etc? So if someone gets pulled over and ends up doing those other checks which they fail ...
Then, in my mind, they were breaking the law in other ways. It started with speeding. So what? Should running stop signs not be illegal, either? Or we could make "California" stops okay... or, you don't really have to come to a complete stop but have to go under 5mph ...
Slightly silly examples towards the end there, but the point is that I am very leery of defending any sort of criminal behavior simply because it was found out in a perhaps less ethical way.
And "racial profiling" seems to be one of those push-the-button-for-scandal words. It is (not referring to you, just ranting now :) ) thrown around as if anytime race is involved in a police decision, it's wrong... even IF the police department is looking for a middle-aged hispanic man, they shouldn't racially profile.
I understand the issue - basing your suspicions generically on someone's race because of some other guy of that race - but it gets pretty wacko sometimes.
(and, to be fair, there definitely very unfortunate examples of cops abusing their power; I think that's detestable and believe they should be treated fairly - which includes justice - like non-cops. It does get rather difficult though, when it seems everyone is claiming racial profiling (even though they WERE guilty of what they were accused of), mental issues (I have a mental problem, so it's okay if I shoot the police officer in the face when he comes to my car window), etc. It makes it difficult to get through what's really a problem and what isn't.
Overpaid: the quality or attribute of someone else being paid more than I am.
Not just revenue, but since everyone is always "speeding" (as most traffic seems to cruise at about 9mph over the limit, above which you can actually get points) , then the police can still pretty much pull over whomever they like (based on racial profiling or whatever). So it's a nice arrangement.
Uhhh. What? So because everyone is speeding, you're accusing them of racial profiling ... by default?
Seems to me the color of the car would be a more apt thing to accuse them of. There have been studies on that, at least.
On the other hand, the speed limits are also probably set 10mph too slow, since they still have to apply to elderly drivers, and in poor weather conditions (though really people should drive slower if they can't see through the torrential downpour / dense fog).
"People should driver slower" ... you're right. But they don't. Well, depending on where you are in the country. As for 10mph too slow, what is that based on, out of curiosity? If it's based on the fact that people go around 9mph over because that's what they can get away with without serious issues, then giving them another 10mph means they will go approximately 10mph faster ... still maintaining there +9mph speed.
But I could see lawsuits coming if they raised speed limits to reasonable levels, but then some dork wipes out on a turn and sues the state because they were trying to "keep up" with the posted limits.
That's why posted limits are different on turns.
You say that as though speeding can never be stupid.
Speeding in bad areas, bad conditions, bad visibility, etc., are all very dangerous.
The faster you go, the less control you have. The less control you have + distractions (oops, spilled my coke, but I can bend down and continue to drive without looking while I pick it up ... because I'm cool in my car with the extra loud muffler and hip-hop beats that make my fender buzz) is pretty dangerous. I have been in many situations where, if *I* had not been aware of what was going on by some stupid driver that was speeding + distracted (and usually doing other stupid things, granted), there would have been accidents. And the driver never knew.
Uh-huh.
Because when the speed limit goes up, people suddenly decide they will follow it. In fact, most people go 75 on the freeway because that's the comfortable speed for them. It has no basis on the fact that most people feel they can get away with 5-10 mph above the speed limit.
Which is why when the speed limit is raised to 70, people still happily chug along at 75.
Regardless, this all ignores the point of speed limits: safety. If you can prove to me that going 80 or 85 is not really any more dangerous with our current cars, current drivers, etc., than going 65, then please do. If you can't, then it seems to me you just don't want to go in trouble for going faster than the speed limit allows.
Because e-mail "from" can't be spoofed ... hm.
Yes, media and whatnot is a big problem.
And yes, the choice is a problem, too. However, I would argue that we simply don't have a backbone right now to actually stand up to what we don't like. Even within the two parties, there are varying candidates. There have been, from my short span of following politics (I'm not that old yet, hehe), some candidates for various offices that haven't quite been typical party-affiliated politicians.
The problem seems to me to be a combination of apathy, of believing whatever "big media" tells you, and not bothering to look up what politicians tell you. And it's cyclical. The more apathetic you get, the more likely you're going to just believe whatever you see/read... and if you're not likely to vote in the first place because you don't really care, you're not likely to get upset about things either...
I would argue that apathy is a problem that we can fix. And I'd argue that until we fix it, it doesn't matter what else gets fixed. Hooray, a fair voting system ... that nobody uses because they don't care. Hooray, a fair government ... that nobody participates in because they don't care. Hooray, fair media! ... that nobody watches because they want to watch people get embarrassed on American Idol.
If the people don't care, a democracy won't work, no matter how good the government is set up.
(I think we still basically agree, I'd just emphasize apathy as a big part of the problem AND a problem that can be directly fixed by the voters, because it's their problem in the first place :) )
How many cores are we talking about here?
The article says it never got out of the prototype stage. Maybe that's why you didn't have one? :)
What about apathetic voters?
You seem to leave them out of the picture. It's not like a democracy works with the people don't do anything.
What if we actually voted er, upright politicians into office that didn't get swayed/purchased by corporations? etc. It's not like w ewere voting in good, quality politicians and all doing our civic duty, spending responsibly, etc., and WHAM - a corporation-bought government of corrupt politicians showed up.
Yes, let's put blame where it belongs. But let's not forget that the voters are somewhat to blame, too. If you get told a bunch of "facts" that are false, and you don't even bother to THINK about them let alone look them up and verify them, then you have some blame as well as the person lying to you.
Just look at the responses you get to various things in politics. People respond emotionally and vote. It seems that people forget they should think about these things and vote rationally. Instead, we vote for so-and-so because he says he will kill BP, and we vote for so-and-so because we hate Bush, and we vote for so-and-so because they think Obama isn't a US Citizen. We support impeaching Obama and don't even know that impeachment is for something illegal. We all accuse Bush of warmongering in Iraq even though most of the Senate voted for it.
In short, we have a tendency to simply believe whatever someone tells us. We don't think and we don't vote. And then we get mad that our government doesn't care about us anymore.
To put it bluntly (and I'm not referring to you directly, of course): if you tell me you care about the government but you don't vote and don't think, then I refuse to believe you.
It'd be like saying you love your wife but given the opportunity, never spend any time with her because it's too much effort.
What's so ironic is that now it's even easier to GET information and easier to think, and yet it seems the tendency is to think less and verify less.
I use google, and gmail, and I have a Droid... how does that equate to controlling my thoughts
That proves it! They control your thoughts to the point that you can't even see how! ;)
if stacked up against the other Internet Explorers it would not win.
Why not?
As another user pointed out, IE upgrades are not forced. They are perhaps put into the "recommended" (but I think they are in "optional," now I don't remember) updates, but you are not forced to upgrade. I can run XP SP3 and click "No" when it asks if I want IE8, and nothing bad has happened.
Is this an ad? What are they selling?
There spelling is grate. Its they're grammar which may have a few errors. Heir brains.
Which implies that "good" could be something unnatural, as a species dying out is quite natural.
Which means "good" and "bad" come from somewhere other than nature, in some way?
At this point, you're likely able to see where I would be going with this ;)
I agree, there definitely other proposed bases for ethics, and it's not reasonable to say it's the only backing for ethics. I'd argue it's the most rational, but certainly would not argue it's the only proposed or even only rational one.
No... it's subjectively a bad thing.
Appreciation is subjective. Calling an action inherently wrong would imply that it's wrong for others to do as well, but they don't necessarily share my appreciation.
Well to be fair, I don't know where I gave evolution human characteristics. To quote:
isn't killing off of species by other species part of evolution?
If evolution is a process, then certain things happen in that process - including death/killing - and thus are part of that process. I wasn't actually implying, that I'm aware of, any intelligence or human characteristic.
Yes, I could have just asked point-blank where morality comes from, but I find it more interesting to force the question from the basis. People very easily argue for two viewpoints and never connect the two.
That last bit wasn't aimed at any particular adherent to any particular belief, theory, etc., either. Everyone does it. It seems that holding to two views that don't really mingle very well is a human thing to do, hehe.
Maybe that's what BP should do to the oil well... dump a lot of pots of half-cooked rice down it :)
But we can ask the question: Is our wanton destruction of many of the ecosystems on earth a desirable thing?
Interesting. I'd certainly argue it's not. Good point.
Quibbling over whether it is properly described as natural or not sort of misses the point.
Granted. On the other hand, it's not a moral issue, in this case. It's a survival-of-our-race issue, in this case?
My underlying point is that many seem to hold to two opposing ideas, IMO...
1. There is no God, and evolution is how everything got here.
2. It's wrong to destroy species, etc. There's some moral/ethical/inherently-bad thing about it.
To me, there's a disconnect. #1 has some amount of backing (evolutionary theory). #2, combined with #1, seems to me to have no backing.
However, if it's simply a desirable or undesirable thing, that's a different argument, which I was not thinking about.
Due to my own beliefs, I actually think we are responsible to take care of the environment, and thus it CAN be actually wrong to kill off species.. or, as you aptly put it, wanton destruction.