By the time they're 12, they've had a long time to pick up values from their parents. Generally speaking, kids whose parents care about education will be the ones who themselves care about education.
I'd say you have to pay me _more_ than you'd pay a domestic worker, which is allowed under H1B. If you're not going to cough up extra money, you didn't really need my expertise all that much -- hire a domestic worker instead.
I want Darl (& the Sco Group) punished to the maximum extent possible under the law.... I want justice to be done and to be seen to done.
I don't quite see the connection here. If the law prescribed the death penalty for what he's done, would you consider it just? What if it allowed no more than a $10 fine?
I think you're missing the point. Yes, the program is fairly easy to write. The issue is that it will take a very long time to run on problems of non-trivial size.
You don't. There are generally-accepted procedures for determining whether she is innocent. The RIAA has played the system to make it useless for making such determinations. In this situation, the court finds that she infringed regardless of whether she actually did, since she is unable to defend herself.
As NYCL points out, illness of this magnitude affects a person's ability to mount a legal defence. Since she was unable to appear in court, the RIAA won by default. At this point, it is not a safe assumption that she did anything wrong.
If you need billions of permutations of universes to bring about one hospitable to intelligent life, tell me how that proves one of those universes is not inhabited by one omnipotent, all powerful being?
It's not meant to be proof that God does not exist. It's just a counter to a purported proof that God must exist, since the universe matches our needs to closely. Whether or not it actually does is a whole separate argument people can have, but it should be noted that most of the universe is rather hostile to human life. Of course, given your multiverse proposal and the typical "fine-tuning" argument, it seems odd to conclude that a transcendent deity exists because the multiverse is mostly inhospitable to human life.
If we did not exists, we would not be able to debate the question - we are a biased sample.
There. That's the important part. The whole point of the anthropic principle is that we shouldn't be surprised to find ourselves in a universe that allows intelligent life. If the universe didn't support it, we wouldn't find ourselves in it.
The argument for God's existence from the anthropic principle is a "God of the gaps" (a phrase I found in one of Russell Stannard's books on the subject) argument.
The argument for God's existence through the anthropic principle is simply "doing it wrong." The point of the anthropic argument is to remove the supposed necessity for an intelligent creator.
Is this testable in any way? If so, is it science?
No, the anthropic principle is not science. Of course, it also doesn't rely on the existence of multiple universes.
Having been involved in retail management for 25+ years, I can tell you, with certainty, that if it's worth locking up at all, it's worth your minimum wage sales drone's effort to steal. Far more theft in most retails stores is by employees than by customers.
How exactly does it improve the situation to use the "finger-slashing" packaging instead of locks?
Furthermore the Cable Television Coalition has submitted testing showing that any WSD within 50 feet of their service will not block the channel, but definitely will cause interference with analog or digital reception. In other words if you're trying to watch Ghost Hunters on Sci-Fi Channel, and your kid sister turns on her WS-enabled Ipod, the picture will degrade into a bunch of noise and/or macroblocking.
There's something fishy about claims of RF devices interfering with cable signals. For one thing, cable signal isn't supposed to be interacting with anything outside the coax shield. Also, have you noticed that many frequencies used for cable are already used by various licensed radio services, sometimes with quite a bit of power?
Personally I'm torn; I'm not sure which greed-mongering corporation to believe
Judging from your other posts, I'd say you've already decided.
There are plenty of ways of communicating religious or political messages that do not require forging email headers.
GP was responding to the assertion that anything said anonymously is not worth listening to. He did not say one should (or should be allowed to) send anonymous messages by forging headers.
Slashdot Mirror
By the time they're 12, they've had a long time to pick up values from their parents. Generally speaking, kids whose parents care about education will be the ones who themselves care about education.
This is pretty much exactly the conclusion given in Freakonomics.
I'd say you have to pay me _more_ than you'd pay a domestic worker, which is allowed under H1B. If you're not going to cough up extra money, you didn't really need my expertise all that much -- hire a domestic worker instead.
Just like anyone else, they receive and deserve a protection which we refer to as "due process."
Are you suggesting that privacy of communication isn't essential liberty or that the giving it up gets us permanent security?
So what does the law allow now, and why do you consider that just (rather than insufficient or excessive)?
I don't quite see the connection here. If the law prescribed the death penalty for what he's done, would you consider it just? What if it allowed no more than a $10 fine?
ALl of the Internet is fraud, or at least the part that people pay attention to.
You mean they're not really having sex?
I think you're missing the point. Yes, the program is fairly easy to write. The issue is that it will take a very long time to run on problems of non-trivial size.
If he doesn't believe free software is legit, do you think it'll be much easier to convince him that companies can make a lot of money that way?
Strictly speaking, yes it's determining guilt. Thanks for the fix.
You don't. There are generally-accepted procedures for determining whether she is innocent. The RIAA has played the system to make it useless for making such determinations. In this situation, the court finds that she infringed regardless of whether she actually did, since she is unable to defend herself.
As NYCL points out, illness of this magnitude affects a person's ability to mount a legal defence. Since she was unable to appear in court, the RIAA won by default. At this point, it is not a safe assumption that she did anything wrong.
You don't even have to do anything questionable. There just has to be someone who objects noisily to it, which is a depressingly low threshold.
It's not supposed to be about how the universe came to be. It just points out that certain things aren't as unlikely as they might seem.
It's not meant to be proof that God does not exist. It's just a counter to a purported proof that God must exist, since the universe matches our needs to closely. Whether or not it actually does is a whole separate argument people can have, but it should be noted that most of the universe is rather hostile to human life.
Of course, given your multiverse proposal and the typical "fine-tuning" argument, it seems odd to conclude that a transcendent deity exists because the multiverse is mostly inhospitable to human life.
There. That's the important part. The whole point of the anthropic principle is that we shouldn't be surprised to find ourselves in a universe that allows intelligent life. If the universe didn't support it, we wouldn't find ourselves in it.
The argument for God's existence through the anthropic principle is simply "doing it wrong." The point of the anthropic argument is to remove the supposed necessity for an intelligent creator.
No, the anthropic principle is not science. Of course, it also doesn't rely on the existence of multiple universes.
How exactly does it improve the situation to use the "finger-slashing" packaging instead of locks?
There's something fishy about claims of RF devices interfering with cable signals. For one thing, cable signal isn't supposed to be interacting with anything outside the coax shield. Also, have you noticed that many frequencies used for cable are already used by various licensed radio services, sometimes with quite a bit of power?
Judging from your other posts, I'd say you've already decided.
You mean this?
GP was responding to the assertion that anything said anonymously is not worth listening to. He did not say one should (or should be allowed to) send anonymous messages by forging headers.
The Onion must really be in hot water, then, eh?
Oh, so it's original research!
I think TFS was asking about moral rights, not legal rights.
Yes. Just leave it up to the judge to consider when deciding on his sentence.