Yes, but which taxpayers will benefit: Afghani or USA ones ?
Neither. They won't hire US citizens to do these jobs, and they'll find some other poor country that they can extract people from and bully into accepting pennies a day.
They did it because they didn't want to have that much staff and wanted an excuse to fire you. The polygraph was a gloss of formality on the process to give them a reason to fire you (without any "real" reason).
In the 1700s, there were no terrorists flying planes into buildings. Therefore, your right to not be searched unreasonably needs to be removed because if the founding fathers had this "threat" they would have taken it into consideration.
In the 1700s, the Founding Fathers were the terrorists.
We're blamed because, quite frankly, we've been the single biggest coherent force on this planet for the last 12000 years (give or take a few thousand depending on how remote a location is). Yes, you'll see a few volcanoes, earthquakes, hurricanes, and asteroids, but they're either not particularly harmful, not widespread, or not continuous over a long period. Individually we're not powerful, but we've been diverting large rivers, clearing jungles and leaving deserts, introducing new species that overwhelm the local food web (Kudzu, Argentine Ants, the various domesticated animals that killed the Dodo) or even just changing wilderness into plowed fields and suburbs. The areas we don't inhabit long term, we toss our junk into without a second thought (see the garbage patches in the ocean).
Yes, if we disappeared tomorrow, the planet would be back to it's old self in a million years. But we won't disappear tomorrow. We'll still be here. And the day after that. And the day after that. And short of a disaster that wipes out every other vertebrate, we'll probably keep on going somehow. But we have to ask ourselves if we really can't do any better (and no, I'm not a neoluddite here, I just hope to live awhile). Should we prefer slightly cheaper gas or beaches that aren't contaminated with oil?
Many languages (With English being the most notable exception) have a central regulating body that determines what words are officially part of that language (which may or may not have an effect on the actual language, depending on what regulations there are for when you would need to use only official words). Japanese doesn't quite have an "official" regulatory body, but since the Agency for Cultural Affairs determines which of the Kanji are "necessary" for things like reading a daily newspaper or average book, and those determinations are what Japanese high school students need to learn, it does have a large amount of influence on what Japanese would end up in print.
Top execs will already pay the price when they get the boot from their cushy jobs for the poor oversight they have exercised.
Yeah, where's the sympathy for those poor executives. How will Tony Hayward survive without his 2.5 million pound compensation package? If he gets fired and can't find another job, he might have to live in only semi-luxury for the rest of his life! The horror!
Not only that but how can you make it more "obvious to all that a recording is underway" than to hold up a camera (especially with a bright "recording" light).
Then those cops should be pushing for constant recording of their actions. It's a lot harder to poke holes in a videotape than it is a person's testimony.
Doctors are highly trained (and highly payed). It makes no sense to have them do a job that requires someone with less training and less pay. It's a bit like saying "Engineers shouldn't waste their time emptying the trash from their office". It's not that emptying trash doesn't need to get done, it's that there's a lot more important things for them to spend their time on.
My biggest problem with Fox News is that they lie and edit their footage (like the most recent example, editing out the applause at Obama's West Point speech). Considering that they've argued in court that just because their the news doesn't mean they can't lie, I don't know why anyone trusts them.
But the claim of atheism is that there is no deity - of any kind, and not restricted to the deities that other people happen to believe in. Were atheists able to disprove specific properties that other people claim of their deity, they would still not even be at the starting line of disproving the existence of a deity.
Except that A) there's no more reason for an atheist to have to disprove a god than for you to have to disprove unicorns and B) there's certainly plenty of arguments against omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence, etc, which apply to any possible being.
Really? What religion claims this?
"And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up. If he has sinned, he will be forgiven. Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective."
James 5:15-16
Bzzt. It's not things that are proven wrong that aren't science (well, they won't count as current scientific theories, but they could have been scientific in their time), it's things that can't possibly be proven wrong ever.
It is theoretically possible to disprove the theory of Evolution (or, much more likely, have it modified, as has been the case with genetics, retroviruses, the discovery of mitochondria having their own DNA and being able to trace that back). You can never, ever disprove the notion that a wizard did it. You could have fossils of every generation of every species and someone could still say "well, the wizard made it that way". If you try to ask how the wizard did it, the response will be a not very enlightening "magic". If you want to try and poke and prod at this wizard, you'll be told that he's invisible, and lives in the ether anyway so you can't touch him. This wizard is not falsifiable, so not matter how much Magical Design proponents might want him to be, he's not science (and never will be).
There are many people who feel offended by religion. I'm not sure what the largest problem is, but a proper atheist should be indifferent to a religious symbol standing out in the middle of a desert, rather than militantly demanding its removal. The same goes for the generic mention of "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. Hostility toward these things indicates that a person is, in some way, offended, or perhaps even threatened by the notion of God. A religious view makes the person uncomfortable, and there's nothing for it, but to lash out at it with anger.
I'm opposed to my government endorsing religion, and so should you (unless you sincerely believe that your particular branch of religion is the one that would come out on top). Many religious politicians seem to want the Bible taught in school, but I'm betting they won't agree on which particular version. King James? Piss off the Catholics. Not King James? Piss off a chunk of Protestants. The Book of Mormon? Piss of everyone who doesn't wear the magic underwear. Etc. I just want to cut it off at the source and have government be completely silent on the matter. If you want to put up a cross on your own land, go for it, but don't use taxpayer money to put one up.
The problem held by those who think as Douglas Adams did, is that to them, religion and science must be mutually exclusive, and it is exacerbated by a long history of religious leaders seeking to create a complete view of the universe based on limited religious texts and notions. What must be understood, is that it is not the realm of religion to explain the universe-- only to explain how best to handle your soul (which is, in itself, poorly defined, but generally recognized as being very important). Just the same, it is the realm of science to explore what we don't know, and little by little, fill that unfathomable chasm. Inherently, neither can outright contradict the other, in much the same way that mathematics cannot inherently contradict an apple. At best, one can describe the other, but that's as far as it goes.
Many fundamentalist Christians promote abstinence only education. Unfortunately for them, science can come back with statistics on teen pregnancy rates, STD rates, etc that show a strong correlation between abstinence only education and far more teens having unprotected sex. Do fundamentalists stop and say "oh, well, this isn't working"? Nope. They push even harder for their failed policies. Thus we end up with situations like the Catholic church being responsible for millions of HIV cases in Africa due to not handing out some condoms.
As for the problem held by the former group, those who have ethical complaints about God, well, those issues are addressed in Judeo-Christian traditions, by the book of Job, the fundamental point of which, is that God understands a great deal more about the horribly complex interactions of the population of the world and their environments, and without that level of understanding, we cannot possibly understand what is ultimately for the greater good, with perfect accuracy. The death of a righteous man may eventually lead to the repentance of an unrighteous man, or the general salvation of another person well down the line, who is unrelated. Just the same, the unexpected death of a dear loved one may result in the abrupt transformation of those who were near to him, causing them to ask questions of themselves that they otherwise would not have explored, or forcing them to rely on themselves in ways that they previously would not have; in either case, forcing them to improve. The results or benefits are generally not apparent to those involved, but in the end, it's difficult to tell what is ultimately good, and what is ultimately evil-- things are not so clean-cut. With regard to his soul, a righteous man has put his affairs in order, and he has nothing of consequence left to do for himself in this world (except perhaps, to teach others what he has learned),
Last I checked self-determination and free market capitalism were some of the founding principles of this country
So was slavery, slaughter of natives, smuggling, religious intolerance (in most of the colonies) and treason (against Britain). Don't hold up the founding fathers on a pedestal. They were people, some good, some bad, most kinda mixed. I for one think that we as a people can take their ideas, keep the good parts and try to improve the parts that quite frankly suck (via reduction of poverty, increased tolerance, protecting the Earth so it's their for our descendants, etc), rather than always try to attain some idealized version of a past that never was.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but which taxpayers will benefit: Afghani or USA ones ?
Neither. They won't hire US citizens to do these jobs, and they'll find some other poor country that they can extract people from and bully into accepting pennies a day.
They did it because they didn't want to have that much staff and wanted an excuse to fire you. The polygraph was a gloss of formality on the process to give them a reason to fire you (without any "real" reason).
Interesting that you mention Berkshire Hathaway, pretty much the only company that never pays dividends.
In the 1700s, there were no terrorists flying planes into buildings. Therefore, your right to not be searched unreasonably needs to be removed because if the founding fathers had this "threat" they would have taken it into consideration.
In the 1700s, the Founding Fathers were the terrorists.
People dumb enough to support airport security don't have jobs that pay enough to travel on a regular basis.
Oh, forgot something. Signed the Copyright Act of 1976 (the act originally giving us this life + forever situation)
I'll help fill in the blank. Ford: Pardoned Nixon.
We're blamed because, quite frankly, we've been the single biggest coherent force on this planet for the last 12000 years (give or take a few thousand depending on how remote a location is). Yes, you'll see a few volcanoes, earthquakes, hurricanes, and asteroids, but they're either not particularly harmful, not widespread, or not continuous over a long period. Individually we're not powerful, but we've been diverting large rivers, clearing jungles and leaving deserts, introducing new species that overwhelm the local food web (Kudzu, Argentine Ants, the various domesticated animals that killed the Dodo) or even just changing wilderness into plowed fields and suburbs. The areas we don't inhabit long term, we toss our junk into without a second thought (see the garbage patches in the ocean).
Yes, if we disappeared tomorrow, the planet would be back to it's old self in a million years. But we won't disappear tomorrow. We'll still be here. And the day after that. And the day after that. And short of a disaster that wipes out every other vertebrate, we'll probably keep on going somehow. But we have to ask ourselves if we really can't do any better (and no, I'm not a neoluddite here, I just hope to live awhile). Should we prefer slightly cheaper gas or beaches that aren't contaminated with oil?
Many languages (With English being the most notable exception) have a central regulating body that determines what words are officially part of that language (which may or may not have an effect on the actual language, depending on what regulations there are for when you would need to use only official words). Japanese doesn't quite have an "official" regulatory body, but since the Agency for Cultural Affairs determines which of the Kanji are "necessary" for things like reading a daily newspaper or average book, and those determinations are what Japanese high school students need to learn, it does have a large amount of influence on what Japanese would end up in print.
(For further information on language regulatory bodies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_language_regulators)
But did they do it in terms of football stadiums filled with CDs (to within an accuracy of a Library of Congress)?
Because it's getting more convenient for the user if the manufacturer ships the software on the device.
Is it really so hard to have the camera show up as an external drive? Do they really need me to put proprietary crapware on my computer?
adult male sexual dysfunction
I heard Slashdot causes this too.
Top execs will already pay the price when they get the boot from their cushy jobs for the poor oversight they have exercised.
Yeah, where's the sympathy for those poor executives. How will Tony Hayward survive without his 2.5 million pound compensation package? If he gets fired and can't find another job, he might have to live in only semi-luxury for the rest of his life! The horror!
And when shoplifting a $20 item results in a fine of $150,000 or more.
Trolls trolling trolls troll trolls trolling trolls.
Not only that but how can you make it more "obvious to all that a recording is underway" than to hold up a camera (especially with a bright "recording" light).
Then those cops should be pushing for constant recording of their actions. It's a lot harder to poke holes in a videotape than it is a person's testimony.
Slashdot gets a large influx of new members?
Doctors are highly trained (and highly payed). It makes no sense to have them do a job that requires someone with less training and less pay. It's a bit like saying "Engineers shouldn't waste their time emptying the trash from their office". It's not that emptying trash doesn't need to get done, it's that there's a lot more important things for them to spend their time on.
My biggest problem with Fox News is that they lie and edit their footage (like the most recent example, editing out the applause at Obama's West Point speech). Considering that they've argued in court that just because their the news doesn't mean they can't lie, I don't know why anyone trusts them.
But the claim of atheism is that there is no deity - of any kind, and not restricted to the deities that other people happen to believe in. Were atheists able to disprove specific properties that other people claim of their deity, they would still not even be at the starting line of disproving the existence of a deity.
Except that A) there's no more reason for an atheist to have to disprove a god than for you to have to disprove unicorns and B) there's certainly plenty of arguments against omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence, etc, which apply to any possible being.
Really? What religion claims this?
"And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up. If he has sinned, he will be forgiven. Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective." James 5:15-16
I don't have 3d vision, you insensitive clod (or a girlfriend, but that's a given here).
Bzzt. It's not things that are proven wrong that aren't science (well, they won't count as current scientific theories, but they could have been scientific in their time), it's things that can't possibly be proven wrong ever.
It is theoretically possible to disprove the theory of Evolution (or, much more likely, have it modified, as has been the case with genetics, retroviruses, the discovery of mitochondria having their own DNA and being able to trace that back). You can never, ever disprove the notion that a wizard did it. You could have fossils of every generation of every species and someone could still say "well, the wizard made it that way". If you try to ask how the wizard did it, the response will be a not very enlightening "magic". If you want to try and poke and prod at this wizard, you'll be told that he's invisible, and lives in the ether anyway so you can't touch him. This wizard is not falsifiable, so not matter how much Magical Design proponents might want him to be, he's not science (and never will be).
There are many people who feel offended by religion. I'm not sure what the largest problem is, but a proper atheist should be indifferent to a religious symbol standing out in the middle of a desert, rather than militantly demanding its removal. The same goes for the generic mention of "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. Hostility toward these things indicates that a person is, in some way, offended, or perhaps even threatened by the notion of God. A religious view makes the person uncomfortable, and there's nothing for it, but to lash out at it with anger.
I'm opposed to my government endorsing religion, and so should you (unless you sincerely believe that your particular branch of religion is the one that would come out on top). Many religious politicians seem to want the Bible taught in school, but I'm betting they won't agree on which particular version. King James? Piss off the Catholics. Not King James? Piss off a chunk of Protestants. The Book of Mormon? Piss of everyone who doesn't wear the magic underwear. Etc. I just want to cut it off at the source and have government be completely silent on the matter. If you want to put up a cross on your own land, go for it, but don't use taxpayer money to put one up.
The problem held by those who think as Douglas Adams did, is that to them, religion and science must be mutually exclusive, and it is exacerbated by a long history of religious leaders seeking to create a complete view of the universe based on limited religious texts and notions. What must be understood, is that it is not the realm of religion to explain the universe-- only to explain how best to handle your soul (which is, in itself, poorly defined, but generally recognized as being very important). Just the same, it is the realm of science to explore what we don't know, and little by little, fill that unfathomable chasm. Inherently, neither can outright contradict the other, in much the same way that mathematics cannot inherently contradict an apple. At best, one can describe the other, but that's as far as it goes.
Many fundamentalist Christians promote abstinence only education. Unfortunately for them, science can come back with statistics on teen pregnancy rates, STD rates, etc that show a strong correlation between abstinence only education and far more teens having unprotected sex. Do fundamentalists stop and say "oh, well, this isn't working"? Nope. They push even harder for their failed policies. Thus we end up with situations like the Catholic church being responsible for millions of HIV cases in Africa due to not handing out some condoms.
As for the problem held by the former group, those who have ethical complaints about God, well, those issues are addressed in Judeo-Christian traditions, by the book of Job, the fundamental point of which, is that God understands a great deal more about the horribly complex interactions of the population of the world and their environments, and without that level of understanding, we cannot possibly understand what is ultimately for the greater good, with perfect accuracy. The death of a righteous man may eventually lead to the repentance of an unrighteous man, or the general salvation of another person well down the line, who is unrelated. Just the same, the unexpected death of a dear loved one may result in the abrupt transformation of those who were near to him, causing them to ask questions of themselves that they otherwise would not have explored, or forcing them to rely on themselves in ways that they previously would not have; in either case, forcing them to improve. The results or benefits are generally not apparent to those involved, but in the end, it's difficult to tell what is ultimately good, and what is ultimately evil-- things are not so clean-cut. With regard to his soul, a righteous man has put his affairs in order, and he has nothing of consequence left to do for himself in this world (except perhaps, to teach others what he has learned),
Last I checked self-determination and free market capitalism were some of the founding principles of this country
So was slavery, slaughter of natives, smuggling, religious intolerance (in most of the colonies) and treason (against Britain). Don't hold up the founding fathers on a pedestal. They were people, some good, some bad, most kinda mixed. I for one think that we as a people can take their ideas, keep the good parts and try to improve the parts that quite frankly suck (via reduction of poverty, increased tolerance, protecting the Earth so it's their for our descendants, etc), rather than always try to attain some idealized version of a past that never was.