I agree with your point entirely. It's not black and white with Ron a saint and everyone else evil lying scum. However- of the major candidates (clinton, romney, etc.) I think all of them have taken on at least one position they do not believe in (and will not implement) or hidden on position which they do believe in (and will push once in office). So I can't trust them to do what they say.
I would say I disagree with Ron on about 40% of his positions. But I trust him to tell the truth and so the other 60% might actually happen. My primary agreement is pro-small government. My primary disagreement is that i think he is way to naive about corporations behavior when unchecked by government.
Out of ALL the candidates (democratic and republican) he is the only one saying what he honestly believes. I do NOT agree with all his positions- but at least I know what his positions are. All the other candidates are lying constantly about their real beliefs to get elected and (just like Mr. Bush) we will find out what they really believe after they get in office. I voted against the Bush the candidate (mr small government, anti-abortion guy) and i would definately vote against Bush the president (mr big government, deficit spender, pro-corporation, anti-abortion guy).
The issue is that we do allow gambling. If it was entirely illegal, this would not be a trade issue. But by allowing gambling in certain protected areas, we are engaging in protectionism of the gambling industry from foreign competition.
We are saying "gambling from italy is illegal" but "gambling from vegas is legal".
Clearly, if a local jurisdiction wishes to prohibit gambling, they just need to put up a firewall around the internet to their jurisdiction.
I'm not talking about talking to the judge. I'm talking about when you talk to the other jurors. If you say "I do not believe in jury nullification" and then go into the jury room and say "This law is amoral and we have the right to jury nullification" you really have enormous legal exposure.
where it says among other things... Some philosophers (notably utilitarians) have argued that lying is not prohibited in certain circumstances, such as when telling a lie might prevent a clearly greater harm e.g. save an innocent life.
Some philosophers have also argued that paternalistic lying (lying for the supposed good of those lied to) is justified, even if it violates their autonomy. An example is lying to someone terminally ill by being unduly optimistic about his prognosis, on the grounds that the shock might effectively shorten his life further.
See also the section on biblical lying below that one.
---
If you allow yourself to have black and white morality rules, you are subject to being manipulated into doing bad things.
If you have no solid understanding of morality however, you face the risk of sliding into increasingly immoral behavior.
I am very tired and went off on a tangent and you cant' edit your posts on slashdot. sorry....
Okay- prosecutor asked me if i believed in JN. I said "no".
If I subsequently argued for JN in the jury, I could be held for perjury or contempt of court.
I suppose if I was really clever, I could say "interesting point that the prosecutor brought up and now that I think about it- this law IS unjust"...
The only place I really say what I think is on internet posts like this. Everywhere else, I always filter because I seem to see reality clearer than most people around me and learned about 20 years ago that it really irritated them when I stated reality.
On another tangent, the same things is true with girls. If you ever find yourself attracted and the question comes up "are we attracted/are you attracted to me" the correct answer is "no not at all!" while continuing to physically act as if you are attracted to them. It's goofy but it works. Attraction (and love) seems to work by some anti-logical process. If you try to approach it, it runs away. If you deny it, it fights to grow stronger.
The prosecution asked me before the trial if I believed in jury nullification. I felt this was an immoral question since it would be used to cancel my right to exercise jury nullification so I answered "no".
As it happens in this case, we found the person guilty (very quickly too). They had run a red light in their personal vehicle and faced possibly losing their commercial license as a result. In the end, we felt they had a motive to lie, while the officer had no reason to lie. We had to make that decision because they told totally contradictory stories on the stand ("the light was green", "the light was red and he ran it from 2 car lengths away from the intersection").
Red light laws are fair as long as the lights are not set to force you to run a red (by having a short yellow).
Personally, I wish they had assessed a penalty of $150,000 per song. It is no more likely to be paid by this lady than the $220k fine. And a fine of 3 million dollars for making available 24 songs would probably get the law overturned.
But after being picked twice now, I would say it depends on the case. I talked to the defense lawyers that picked me after the cases (not guilty) and they wanted a logical person. The other time, everyone ahead of me was clearly being disqualified is why it got to me.
If someone comes to kill someone and asks you if you know where they are hiding, it is moral to lie.
If someone asks you if you believe in jury nullification, it is moral to like and say "no" since saying "yes" would get you disqualified from the jury. If you do so, you must use any reason besides jury nullification as your reason for finding the defending "not guilty" or you could face contempt charges. However if you just pick some stupid ass reason and stick to it then you are okay. "I just don't believe that she is guilty-- I can't really say why but i just do not believe it. Just a 'gut' feeling, okay?"
The first historical attempt at blood transfusion was described by the 15th-century chronicler Stefano Infessura. Infessura relates that, in 1492, as Pope Innocent VIII sank into a coma, the blood of three boys was infused into the dying pontiff (through the mouth, as the concept of circulation and methods for intravenous access did not exist at that time) at the suggestion of a physician. The boys were ten years old, and had been promised a ducat each. However, not only the pope died, but so did the three children. Some authors have discredited Infessura's account, accusing him of anti-papalism.
http://www.anes.uab.edu/july.htm 1492 July 25: Giovanni Battista Cibo, born in Genoa, Italy, in 1432, dies. On August 29, 1484, he became Pope Innocent VIII. An early attempt at blood transfusion involving Pope Innocent VIII was described by Stefano Infessura [ca. 1435-1500], an anti-papist lawyer in Rome. According to Infessura's Diary of the City of Rome, when the Pope was on his deathbed, a Jewish physician suggested infusing blood from three ten year-old boys into the pontiff's veins. All three donors died and Innocent himself died on July 25, 1492. The Catholic Encyclopedia warns that Infessura's work is full of gossip and not to be trusted.
When it is clear that I have no hope of winning, I tend to start messing with the game. Had a guy get really pissed off yesterday at a board game and finally say "I just don't know what the hell you are going to do!"
Sadly, this made me smile and feel happy since 40 minutes before it was his move that made it certain I would not win.
I was considering the impact of other directors...
Paul Verhoeven: He would probably choose some aspect of the story and hyper emphasize it. The movie would also have blatant political satire.
Michael Bay: The fight scenes would be dramatic, but we would not have any idea who was fighting or who was winning until the end when we finally got a somethings besides blurred elbows and bodies and the wide angle shot showed us the winners standing.
David Lynch: A very strange film with gollem losing an ear and sauron going on and on about mommy while taking nitro.
Joel and Ethan Coen: An offbeat humorous version with every goofy character in LOTR played up and heightened magical reality.
David Cronenberg: Would use LOTR as a metaphor to examine the nature of reality. At the end, there would be a tie-in between Sauron and current modern reality.
Stephen Chow: A rollicking humorous version of LOTR with lots of special effects. He would probably focus on the one on one fight scenes more than the big battle scenes. No doubt, Gandalf's robes would be reduced to tatters by the Balrog's first attack and we would see his long underwear for a comedy effect before they both tumbled into the abyss.
Quentin Tarantino: This hyper-kenetic, super dark version of LTR would have lots of squick scenes. The lust between Aragorn and his love interest would be played up. Harvey Keitel would appear as Aragorn. Juliette Lewis would star as Arwen.
Michael Moore: Sauron as a metaphor for corporations or the Bush presidency... The hobbits as the socialist paradise (with a scene showing how hobbits were so happy because they had socialized medicine and ate only natural food).
Woody Allen: Woody would of course be Bilbo. Back in the day Mia Farrow would have been Arwen. Someone would have an affair.
Night Shyamalan: Whatever happened during the movie-- the ending would involve some sort of massive twist. Perhaps it will turnout Sauron was so desperate to build power because he was trying to stop something even worse from happening (ala "colossus and crab").
Spike Lee: Black hobbits for sure! Probably black elves. And the orcs would be white. Sure the evilness of the "white hand" would be played up.
George Lucas: 9 hours of wonderful actors giving horrible performances... true to the plot and great special effect scenes tho.
Clint Eastwood: Man.. I like his work but can't imagine what his version would be like. He might be aragorn tho.
---
I think if people consider what we could have had.... They will realize how grateful we should be that Jackson took this on.
Slashdot Mirror
If my dvd drive was working and then I installed your game and immediately afterwards my dvd drive was not working, I would assume it was the game.
I agree with your point entirely. It's not black and white with Ron a saint and everyone else evil lying scum. However- of the major candidates (clinton, romney, etc.) I think all of them have taken on at least one position they do not believe in (and will not implement) or hidden on position which they do believe in (and will push once in office). So I can't trust them to do what they say.
I was able to find out more about Mike here:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Mike_Gravel.htm
It's a little thin but it is something.
Ron's here.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Ron_Paul.htm
I would say I disagree with Ron on about 40% of his positions. But I trust him to tell the truth and so the other 60% might actually happen. My primary agreement is pro-small government. My primary disagreement is that i think he is way to naive about corporations behavior when unchecked by government.
The site is a decent site.
I am supporting Ron Paul.
Out of ALL the candidates (democratic and republican) he is the only one saying what he honestly believes. I do NOT agree with all his positions- but at least I know what his positions are. All the other candidates are lying constantly about their real beliefs to get elected and (just like Mr. Bush) we will find out what they really believe after they get in office. I voted against the Bush the candidate (mr small government, anti-abortion guy) and i would definately vote against Bush the president (mr big government, deficit spender, pro-corporation, anti-abortion guy).
As an American,
The issue is that we do allow gambling. If it was entirely illegal, this would not be a trade issue. But by allowing gambling in certain protected areas, we are engaging in protectionism of the gambling industry from foreign competition.
We are saying "gambling from italy is illegal" but "gambling from vegas is legal".
Clearly, if a local jurisdiction wishes to prohibit gambling, they just need to put up a firewall around the internet to their jurisdiction.
Isn't it going to be dead easy for china, russia, japan, most of europe to destroy any significant satellite? And possibly even anonymously.
So I assume that many other more hostile nations will be able to within 50 years.
I'm not talking about talking to the judge. I'm talking about when you talk to the other jurors.
If you say "I do not believe in jury nullification" and then go into the jury room and say "This law is amoral and we have the right to jury nullification" you really have enormous legal exposure.
Bought stuff from Magnatunes over the web.
No DRM ages ago. Gives a 50% split to the artist.
By that moral philosophy.
However by others, it is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie#Morality_of_lying
where it says among other things...
Some philosophers (notably utilitarians) have argued that lying is not prohibited in certain circumstances, such as when telling a lie might prevent a clearly greater harm e.g. save an innocent life.
Some philosophers have also argued that paternalistic lying (lying for the supposed good of those lied to) is justified, even if it violates their autonomy. An example is lying to someone terminally ill by being unduly optimistic about his prognosis, on the grounds that the shock might effectively shorten his life further.
See also the section on biblical lying below that one.
---
If you allow yourself to have black and white morality rules, you are subject to being manipulated into doing bad things.
If you have no solid understanding of morality however, you face the risk of sliding into increasingly immoral behavior.
So it is tricky.
I am very tired and went off on a tangent and you cant' edit your posts on slashdot. sorry....
Okay- prosecutor asked me if i believed in JN.
I said "no".
If I subsequently argued for JN in the jury, I could be held for perjury or contempt of court.
I suppose if I was really clever, I could say "interesting point that the prosecutor brought up and now that I think about it- this law IS unjust"...
The only place I really say what I think is on internet posts like this. Everywhere else, I always filter because I seem to see reality clearer than most people around me and learned about 20 years ago that it really irritated them when I stated reality.
On another tangent, the same things is true with girls. If you ever find yourself attracted and the question comes up "are we attracted/are you attracted to me" the correct answer is "no not at all!" while continuing to physically act as if you are attracted to them. It's goofy but it works. Attraction (and love) seems to work by some anti-logical process. If you try to approach it, it runs away. If you deny it, it fights to grow stronger.
Well, I did look around and I didn't see any other rubes in the room so...
No...
Here is the scenario I faced
The prosecution asked me before the trial if I believed in jury nullification.
I felt this was an immoral question since it would be used to cancel my right to exercise jury nullification so I answered "no".
As it happens in this case, we found the person guilty (very quickly too). They had run a red light in their personal vehicle and faced possibly losing their commercial license as a result. In the end, we felt they had a motive to lie, while the officer had no reason to lie. We had to make that decision because they told totally contradictory stories on the stand ("the light was green", "the light was red and he ran it from 2 car lengths away from the intersection").
Red light laws are fair as long as the lights are not set to force you to run a red (by having a short yellow).
Personally,
I wish they had assessed a penalty of $150,000 per song.
It is no more likely to be paid by this lady than the $220k fine.
And a fine of 3 million dollars for making available 24 songs would probably get the law overturned.
Used to think this.
But after being picked twice now, I would say it depends on the case. I talked to the defense lawyers that picked me after the cases (not guilty) and they wanted a logical person. The other time, everyone ahead of me was clearly being disqualified is why it got to me.
And well known cases include refusing to convict O.J. Simpson.
The other famous and precedent setting case was printer John Peter Zenger who was charged with sedition for criticizing the government.
One key thing to remember.
If someone comes to kill someone and asks you if you know where they are hiding, it is moral to lie.
If someone asks you if you believe in jury nullification, it is moral to like and say "no" since saying "yes" would get you disqualified from the jury. If you do so, you must use any reason besides jury nullification as your reason for finding the defending "not guilty" or you could face contempt charges. However if you just pick some stupid ass reason and stick to it then you are okay. "I just don't believe that she is guilty-- I can't really say why but i just do not believe it. Just a 'gut' feeling, okay?"
The amazing thing is that $750 per song is also extremely unreasonable yet that passes below the radar.
The punishment for breaking copyright is in many cases worse than the fines for many other harsher crimes.
A more reasonable "punitive" fine would have been maybe $50 per song.
I imagine there will be at least a hundred people who will never ever buy records again because of this case.
That heat, and the heat gradient for dumping it seems like a great energy source.
I would have gone to the moon when I was younger. Not so sure now.
I do think we are doomed to very horrible times-- probably near the end of my natural lifespan.
But I can probably do better retreating to the backwoods somewhere than going to the moon.
Multiple Sources...Looks to be true tho the church disputes it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_transfusion
Early attempts
The first historical attempt at blood transfusion was described by the 15th-century chronicler Stefano Infessura. Infessura relates that, in 1492, as Pope Innocent VIII sank into a coma, the blood of three boys was infused into the dying pontiff (through the mouth, as the concept of circulation and methods for intravenous access did not exist at that time) at the suggestion of a physician. The boys were ten years old, and had been promised a ducat each. However, not only the pope died, but so did the three children. Some authors have discredited Infessura's account, accusing him of anti-papalism.
http://www.anes.uab.edu/july.htm
1492 July 25: Giovanni Battista Cibo, born in Genoa, Italy, in 1432, dies. On August 29, 1484, he became Pope Innocent VIII. An early attempt at blood transfusion involving Pope Innocent VIII was described by Stefano Infessura [ca. 1435-1500], an anti-papist lawyer in Rome. According to Infessura's Diary of the City of Rome, when the Pope was on his deathbed, a Jewish physician suggested infusing blood from three ten year-old boys into the pontiff's veins. All three donors died and Innocent himself died on July 25, 1492. The Catholic Encyclopedia warns that Infessura's work is full of gossip and not to be trusted.
Depends on the company. This is not true for a sub-chapter S corporation.
The income flow straight through to the stockholders as dividends (up to 36 here in texas) with no taxes to the corp.
All expenses are deductible.
There are some nuances.. but basically that's the way it works.
Ha, you scraped the bottom for that.
Can you top it?
When he flew on Southwest, would he get miraculously good frequent flyer miles?
When it is clear that I have no hope of winning, I tend to start messing with the game. Had a guy get really pissed off yesterday at a board game and finally say "I just don't know what the hell you are going to do!"
Sadly, this made me smile and feel happy since 40 minutes before it was his move that made it certain I would not win.
I was considering the impact of other directors...
Paul Verhoeven: He would probably choose some aspect of the story and hyper emphasize it. The movie would also have blatant political satire.
Michael Bay: The fight scenes would be dramatic, but we would not have any idea who was fighting or who was winning until the end when we finally got a somethings besides blurred elbows and bodies and the wide angle shot showed us the winners standing.
David Lynch: A very strange film with gollem losing an ear and sauron going on and on about mommy while taking nitro.
Joel and Ethan Coen: An offbeat humorous version with every goofy character in LOTR played up and heightened magical reality.
David Cronenberg: Would use LOTR as a metaphor to examine the nature of reality. At the end, there would be a tie-in between Sauron and current modern reality.
Stephen Chow: A rollicking humorous version of LOTR with lots of special effects. He would probably focus on the one on one fight scenes more than the big battle scenes. No doubt, Gandalf's robes would be reduced to tatters by the Balrog's first attack and we would see his long underwear for a comedy effect before they both tumbled into the abyss.
Quentin Tarantino: This hyper-kenetic, super dark version of LTR would have lots of squick scenes. The lust between Aragorn and his love interest would be played up. Harvey Keitel would appear as Aragorn. Juliette Lewis would star as Arwen.
Michael Moore: Sauron as a metaphor for corporations or the Bush presidency... The hobbits as the socialist paradise (with a scene showing how hobbits were so happy because they had socialized medicine and ate only natural food).
Woody Allen: Woody would of course be Bilbo. Back in the day Mia Farrow would have been Arwen. Someone would have an affair.
Night Shyamalan: Whatever happened during the movie-- the ending would involve some sort of massive twist. Perhaps it will turnout Sauron was so desperate to build power because he was trying to stop something even worse from happening (ala "colossus and crab").
Spike Lee: Black hobbits for sure! Probably black elves. And the orcs would be white. Sure the evilness of the "white hand" would be played up.
George Lucas: 9 hours of wonderful actors giving horrible performances... true to the plot and great special effect scenes tho.
Clint Eastwood: Man.. I like his work but can't imagine what his version would be like. He might be aragorn tho.
---
I think if people consider what we could have had.... They will realize how grateful we should be that Jackson took this on.
All I do is read pdf's.
Just like Openoffice is immune to Word virus's--- is there a recommended non-adobe pdf reader folks would recommend?
I'm getting tired of the "Please upgrade to version 7" warnings anyway.
I agree that some jargon just exists to make people feel special.
A lot of jargon exists to save time.
With regard to software, Patterns would be a good counter-example.
I've seen senior resources have very brief but concise conversations using patterns jargon.
"So I'll use a singleton for this and a factory object for that"
"sounds good."
The same conversation without the jargon would have taken much longer and been prone to miscommunication.