RTFA. Nowhere in the article does it say that 2005 was the hottest year we know of. It refers to "recent warmth". For those who care to look for themselves, the actual news release indicates (in its first sentence) that the findings are about "the last few decades of the 20th century". So, this is not "blatant stupidity and carping that passes itself off as science", it's an ambiguously-accurate digestion of real news that passes itself off as journalism, followed by your blatant stupidity and carping that passes itself off as an informative comment. Don't blame the scientists for doing research that gets ambiguously reported by the media.
I know your comment is a response to Gore's book (I read your link). But your comment is irrelevant to the story you commented on. Thanks for the knee-jerk reaction. Your comment should be modded -1 Offtopic.
> It's probably better that they keep a smaller, less destructive arsenal purely as a deterant.
True, but I predict they'll keep a smaller, more destructive arsenal. You don't think we've stopped researching bombs since we built those old Cold War nukes, do you?
Iran, for example, is now run by a man who claims his role is to quicken the arrival of the muslim messiah, an event which according to the Quaran can only come to pass by means of greatly increased chaos in the world.
Strange how much a similar issue on the American side is provoking terrorism. Many fundamentalist Christians (a very important part of Bush's base) believe that the second coming of Jesus can't happen until the Jewish people are in full control of the holy land. In fact, a particular prophecy requires a temple to be built where the Dome of the Rock currently is -- how can the temple be rebuilt while the Dome of the Rock exists, which is one of Islam's holiest sites? To spell it out, there are a great many politically active Christians who fervently want the removal of Islamic control of the region by any means necessary, so that their messiah can return.
You may think this is a stretch to claim that this is a big deal, but it's not a stretch. Do you have any idea why Osama bin Laden hates us so much? Why so many other Muslim extremists hate us so much? The Palestine-Israel conflict. Just listen to them some time, they make it clear that's one of the major sources of enmity, if not the overwhemlingly most important source. And then read up on the history of the region for about the last 120 years or so -- you might discover they have a reason to be a little disgruntled. (I'm not saying this justifies suicide bombings, but I am saying the West is responsible for giving them the short end of the stick.) And with our continuing biased influence in the region, there's no wonder they won't forget about it anytime soon.
Those rights you think you have are an illusion I'm afraid. They became nonviable the day some guy called Muhammad said "Now go kill all the infedels".
That's not when it started. From the Qur'an:
And do not dispute with the followers of the Book except by what is best, except those of them who act unjustly, and say: We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you, and our God and your God is One, and to Him do we submit. 29:46
The followers of the Book include Christians and Jews, possibly among others. But we lose that status and become "infidels" when they perceive us as acting unjustly. You can point the finger and blame Islam all you want, but a big part of the problem is that we've been screwing them over for a long time.
Thinking that other people hate us completely without any cause is the easy (and irresponsible) way out. Hate is often irrational in intensity, but rarely random in direction. We share responsibility for creating the situation. Sitting here and claiming to be innocent victims is utter BS. Yes we're victims, but we're sure as hell not innocent.
You are making things much more extreme than they need to be. Would the failure of *most* software applications cause you to get hurt? No. Would the failure of a small portion of software potentially cause you injury? Yes. A very small portion.
Similarly, although there are some books whose misinformation could cause you physical harm, most software is more akin to a recipe in a book. What happens if it goes wrong? I waste some time and ingredients. Maybe the smoke alarms wake up my neighbors. And that's it. Do I think the entire non-fiction book industry should be regulated to cover those books that might cause you harm? No.
If an author writes something blatantly dangerous, whether intentional or not, perhaps they should be liable. Perhaps -- it depends on additional circumstances (I don't trust everything I read, so it would partly depend on the general perceived trustworthiness of the source). But regulation is overkill.
You make good points, but here's something else to consider: people tend to clump in social networks when they're not actively trying to avoid such detection. As it has become well-known that examining social networks is a useful technique, you can bet the smart terrorists have taken measures to foil this, and you can also bet the smart terrorists have had tutorials written for the not-so-smart terrorists. While it might still be useful for small-time terrorists, the big boys are most certainly extremely hard to nail down this way.
So, while I agree with you to some extent, I still have to think that these call records will not produce a lot of results against the targets we are most concerned about. I agree with you that the idea of tracking people who want to impeach Bush is ridiculous... but did you see the article about reporter phone records being used to find leaks? I think social networking would work much better for that task, where the people probably weren't trying as hard to cover their tracks, which is along the lines of what the previous poster was suggesting.
Note the difference betweenthe following twoversions of your example:
"Brewery best practice tells us that the optimum amount of hops in the beverage is..."
"Brewery best practice tells us that the optimum amount of hops in beverages is..."
The first is correct because it uses the definite article, which implies the speaker and the listener have an already established understanding about which beverage in particular is being referenced (and thus does not require more specific language). The second does not have that key implication as it lacks an article. In fact, since it lacks an article, it versy specifically refers to beverages in general.
Compare to the article quote:
"Patent law unambiguously grants owners of intellectual property..."
It is most like the second version of the brewing example, because it also lacks an article. (The quote is a slightly different situation merely because intellectual property is uncountable, so the singular form is always used.) Strictly speaking, this phrasing refers to intellectual property in general, just like my version of your brewing example.
A more correct version would refer to "such intellectual property", or "this intellectual property", or perhaps "said intellectual property". Or, for something completely different, it could be rephrased to avoid using the term "intellectual property" at all.
> Only a pointless flame war can guide me through this conundrum.
Oh for crying out loud -- why is parent moderated as "flamebait"?
The post is clearly tongue-in-cheek, and intended to be funny. "Flamebait refers to comments whose sole purpose is to insult and enrage." (emphasis added) At worst, parent is offtopic.
Now, of course, this comment is clearly offtopic.:-)
> Modders start out as players; they are only interested in the game they're familiar with
Perhaps modders have a sense (whether true or not) that potential players are more interested in a game engine they're familair with. So, since they want to do mods that will be successful, they stick to commercial games.
In other words, if modders think there is more demand for a commerical mod, that's what most of them will want to create.
Humans have proven themselves pretty good at destroying atmospheres. They're not so good at creating them. And in the case of Mars, you need to create an atmosphere. But in the case of Venus, you need to destroy it. Doesn't this make Venus a more natural candidate for human endeavours?
There's a small problem with this part of your logic. We don't need to just destroy the current atmosphere, we need to engineer an atmosphere similar to ours. You're right that it probably wouldn't be terribly difficult to cause drastic changes to the atmosphere of Venus; the hard part is that we couldn't just make any drastic changes and have it become Earth-like -- we have a particular end in mind.
To use a similar comparison to come to a contrary conclusion: if we can't easily control fluctuations in the makeup of our own atmosphere, there's no reason to think we can easily cause controlled changes in Venus's atmosphere, much less stabilize it at a given makeup once it reaches that point.
1) good idea - but they're going to also need to provide directions for an alternate route
2) This sounds like a rather remote, extremely lightly travelled route - it may not be economically feasible to install a guard rail and "stabilize the slope" (which could cost tens of thousands or millions of dollars). Sounds like it is just a back-country dirt road that wasn't designed for through traffic.
Here's a possibility that might solve 2 different problems: make it a toll road for non-residents of Crackpot. All residents could be issued a pass that makes them excempt from the toll. I know that would be a pain, but you have to live with getting a government-issued pass to get street parking where I live, so it's doable -- and anyone who doesn't drive on that road (maybe most of the locals?) wouldn't need to bother with it.
There are 4 good things about this:
1) Making it a toll road might (after the information gets into the database) redirect GPS routed-traffic another way, since I think the algorithms usually avoid tolls.
2) If it doesn't direct traffic away, then the generated income would perhaps make it economically feasible to improve the road to conditions appropriate for the amount of traffic.
3) If you place the toll strategically, it will slow cars down just before the most dangerous area.
4) If it is a manned toll (though that probably increases the overhead cost of the toll itself), then the person working there could provide the warning and alternate directions.
Yes it does -- you can compare results between China, France, Germany, and the United States.
Try going to the site and search for the word peace, telling it to compare the results between the United States and Germany -- there are over twice as many sites returned in Germany than the United States.
I really don't understand why so many people can't get this. For instance, here's a quote from a Newsweek article from 2003:
Yet the very tactics that they have used in the past to ferret out information--cordons and searches, midnight raids on the homes of suspected cell members, destruction of crops of those suspected of supporting the insurgents--only alienate the population further.
Is it really any wonder that destroying the crops (food and livelihood) of suspected insurgent supporters (not proven-in-a-court insurgents, or proven-in-a-court insurgent supporters, but suspected insurgent supporters!) is going to create more insurgents?
With tactics like those, of course we're going to target the wrong people sometimes, and that just makes the insurgents all the more justified in the eyes of the rest of the people. If you can't even feed yourself, you might as well go out with a bang (sorry for the pun) that hurts your oppressors instead of wasting away (so the logic goes).
If you read some analysis about the election of Hamas, you'll find that many people who pay attention to this sort of thing believe the election results had more to do with Hamas's social programs in comparison to Fatah's corruption and lack of progress than it does with wanting to encourage violence (Hamas has had a cease-fire agreement with Israel for over a year, IIRC). Of course, that doesn't mean Hamas won't take their election as a "mandate", but it does mean that it is fallacious to assume the Palestinians have a majority support for violence and suicide bombings.
It's just like how things would have been if John Kerry had won in 2004 -- all that *really* would have said is that people were tired of Bush and so voted for the Other Guy. Yes, he had supporters, but I think a lot of his votes were people voting for NotBush, just like many Palestinians voted for NotFatah.
It is not a good thing to rob someone, even if your purpose is to distribute his wealth to those who have less. The ends do not justify the means.
This, again, is an opinion. I keep having the feeling that you state these opinions feeling that they are self-obvious facts; if that's just your style of expression (i.e. you realize it's just your opinion and that there are other opinions which are just as valid), then tell me, and I'll quit pointing out when you state your opinion as fact.
If taxation is "not a good thing", and the ends do not justify the means, then taxation is never justified, regardless of the purpose. If killing a human being is "not a good thing", then it would never be justified, even to save the lives of millions.
On the other hand, if taxation is ever justified, then taxation must not be inherently a bad thing, and/or it must be possible for ends to outweigh the negatives of means. I honestly can't tell from your comment whether you believe that taxation is always bad (since it infringes on liberties) or not; if you believe it is always bad, then there is no reason for us to continue this discussion, because I now understand your point of view and know why we disagree.
I see no reason to use such emotionally charged words as "rob", "charity", and "looting". I think that society, as a steward of the people, has a duty (or obligation, since you seem to prefer that word) to provide for certain basic needs of the people, if that society can reasonably afford to do so (i.e. I wouldn't want to deprive some of their basic needs while trying to provide the same for others). You can call it charity or looting or robbery, I'm not concerned with the label. What I am concerned about is whether people's basic needs are covered, and beyond that whether they are receiving from society in proportion to their contribution. I think that consitutes a more important goal for society than to ensure that individuals have as much freedom as possible to do what they want with whatever money they have, regardless of how they acquired it.
It can't be a right, because it is a demand that infringes the liberty of other people.
You seem to be implying that taxation infringes the liberty of other people. I agree that taxation (at times) takes money from me and spends it in ways that are wasteful, stupid, and counter to my moral beliefs. However, my idea of my liberties does not include freedom from contributing monitarily to society/government, even when I do not agree with the use to which that money will be put. I do not agree that the demand of providing health care for others infringes anyone else's rights, unless the cost to them would be so great that it would impair their ability to provide themselves with food, clothing, shelter, health care, etc. In a country as wealthy as the US, we (as a society) can definitely afford to do it.
someone very well might be "entitled to health care at other people's expense",
Sure, if that other person took on the obligation voluntarily.
Or, if society decides health care is a right, and provides it to people (funded via taxes). Society can take on the obligation voluntarily, despite the objections of indivual members. Those individuals involuntarily provide health care, since the government will force them to pay their taxes.
Perhaps this is all an issue of semantics. What if, instead of talking about someone's right to be provided with health care, I phrased it as society's duty to provide health care? For example, I think we agree that society has a duty to protect the rights of its citizens. I also believe society has a duty to provide food, clothing, shelter, and health care to its people, as long as we can reasonably afford to do so. Does that sit better with you? If not, I fear we disagree on a very fundamental level, and stand no chance of reconciling our opinions.
While I would agree with you that health care is not a fundamental human right, there is no reason to think that it cannot be a right, just because it is a service. Times change, the rights and privileges society give people change, and the ideas about what is and is not a right change (because in reality, those ideas are opinions, though some people like to think they are universal facts).
I don't believe a person has the right to be fed, clothed, sheltered, and provided enough wealth to live in excess their entire life without ever doing anything even arguably productive. However, someone who inherits a very profitable company (for example) can do that. I would argue that, since this hypothetical person receives benefits from others without providing anything back (that money has to come from somewhere), they are doing it "at other people's expense". Yet many people view this possibility as following directly from basic rights (you may accumulate as much wealth as you can; you may give wealth to anyone; you may profit from ownership, even if that ownership is the only thing you contribute), so they would believe any attempt at interference to be a violation of those rights.
Thus, in essence, many people believe it is a right to be fed, clothed, and sheltered at another's expense (the inheritance example above), as long as it fits with the "rights" they infer from their economic perspective. A differing economic perspective might include the ideal "no one should go hungry while another has more than they need", which would also infer the right to be fed at the expense of others, but in a different set of circumstances. It's not hard to extend that to health care.
In short: someone very well might be "entitled to health care at other people's expense", despite your insistence to the contrary -- it depends greatly on your perspective, and the situation/society that particular someone is in.
I think when it says "misspellings", it doesn't mean the "I trenslated this miself" kind of misspelling in the email body, but rather the "this looks almost like a legitimate URL, unless you notice that it's not spelled correctly" kind of mispelling, which is usually spelled correctly in the link text. Like, for instance, www.citibank.com (as a hypothetical example).
This is why TFA goes on to say "[...] the technology did not flag the request because there was nothing in the Internet address to indicate the site was at all related to a financial institution." -- because they try to catch URLs that are similar to, but not quite the same as, legitimate URLs of financial institutions.
If the past 100 years is the warmest century for at least 12 centuries, and 2005 was the warmest year in over a century (with the next 4 runners up all occuring in the last 10 years), I don't like where our climate is headed (regardless of whose fault it is or isn't that it's heading there).:-(
No, that was my point. I was responding to someone who said "No matter how much they redact irrelavent text or try to keep users from gaining full access to the book, someone will.", which seemed to be claiming that Google's project should be forbidden simply because it makes the possibility of someone reading the book online for free more likely. I was countering by pointing out that libraries, by loaning out books, do the same thing. If someone doesn't believe libraries should be forbidden from loaning out books for that reason, (I claim) neither should Google Books be forbidden for that reason.
Google has no right to index all the books it wants and throw them online for anyone to browse.
[sarcasm] Yeah, and libraries have no right to purchase books and throw them on shelves for anyone to check out for free. Heaven forbid someone quote a book in a scholarly paper! Those writings are the work of the author, and shouldn't be stolen by those wanting to piggy-back off their labors! [/sarcasm]
It's called "fair use". So, the debate is (or at least should be) whether Google's project consitutes fair use or not. To state point-blank that they have no right to do it based on the idea of copyright is to ignore precedent, which says reasonable exceptions can (and should) be made. The right not to have your book quoted, for example, is something you don't have unless you specifically reserve it (can you even do that? I assume so...).
No matter how much they redact irrelavent text or try to keep users from gaining full access to the book, someone will.
I could argue that libraries make it easier for someone to get their hands on a book (for free) long enough to scan and possibly OCR it, then share it online via P2P. Just because something can be abused doesn't mean it should be forbidden. You have to weigh the costs and benefits.
Try taking a look at Hitman Pro 2 (http://www.hitmanpro.nl/) (the page is in Dutch, but the "Download" link near the top-right is in English (or maybe it's just the same word in Dutch), and the installer and program can run in English).
While you are correct that multiple programs are often needed, Hitman Pro is a meta- spyware/virus remover which makes that issue much simpler for the user. It downloads, installs, and/or updates (whichever are necessary, and giving you the option to read all EULAs etc or not) serveral antispyware and antivirus programs and runs them all, giving a comprehensive report at the end. You can configure it to leave out any programs you choose. One great thing about this is that even a user who doesn't/can't keep track of which programs exist that are good can be pretty safe with this, because if a new (good) program comes out, Hitman Pro can start using it without the user having to find out that it is a good program and going to the effort to download it. Hitman Pro does a few things itself (rather than relying 100% on other programs), some of which include useful innoculations that most people would have to do by hand otherwise.
In short, although the good side is disorganized, I think Hitman Pro mitigates to a large extent many of the effects of that disorganization.
Slashdot Mirror
RTFA. Nowhere in the article does it say that 2005 was the hottest year we know of. It refers to "recent warmth". For those who care to look for themselves, the actual news release indicates (in its first sentence) that the findings are about "the last few decades of the 20th century". So, this is not "blatant stupidity and carping that passes itself off as science", it's an ambiguously-accurate digestion of real news that passes itself off as journalism, followed by your blatant stupidity and carping that passes itself off as an informative comment. Don't blame the scientists for doing research that gets ambiguously reported by the media.
I know your comment is a response to Gore's book (I read your link). But your comment is irrelevant to the story you commented on. Thanks for the knee-jerk reaction. Your comment should be modded -1 Offtopic.
> It's probably better that they keep a smaller, less destructive arsenal purely as a deterant.
True, but I predict they'll keep a smaller, more destructive arsenal. You don't think we've stopped researching bombs since we built those old Cold War nukes, do you?
You may think this is a stretch to claim that this is a big deal, but it's not a stretch. Do you have any idea why Osama bin Laden hates us so much? Why so many other Muslim extremists hate us so much? The Palestine-Israel conflict. Just listen to them some time, they make it clear that's one of the major sources of enmity, if not the overwhemlingly most important source. And then read up on the history of the region for about the last 120 years or so -- you might discover they have a reason to be a little disgruntled. (I'm not saying this justifies suicide bombings, but I am saying the West is responsible for giving them the short end of the stick.) And with our continuing biased influence in the region, there's no wonder they won't forget about it anytime soon. That's not when it started. From the Qur'an: The followers of the Book include Christians and Jews, possibly among others. But we lose that status and become "infidels" when they perceive us as acting unjustly. You can point the finger and blame Islam all you want, but a big part of the problem is that we've been screwing them over for a long time.
Thinking that other people hate us completely without any cause is the easy (and irresponsible) way out. Hate is often irrational in intensity, but rarely random in direction. We share responsibility for creating the situation. Sitting here and claiming to be innocent victims is utter BS. Yes we're victims, but we're sure as hell not innocent.
You had real rats? In my day, all we had were ex-mobsters in the witness protection program!
You are making things much more extreme than they need to be. Would the failure of *most* software applications cause you to get hurt? No. Would the failure of a small portion of software potentially cause you injury? Yes. A very small portion. Similarly, although there are some books whose misinformation could cause you physical harm, most software is more akin to a recipe in a book. What happens if it goes wrong? I waste some time and ingredients. Maybe the smoke alarms wake up my neighbors. And that's it. Do I think the entire non-fiction book industry should be regulated to cover those books that might cause you harm? No.
If an author writes something blatantly dangerous, whether intentional or not, perhaps they should be liable. Perhaps -- it depends on additional circumstances (I don't trust everything I read, so it would partly depend on the general perceived trustworthiness of the source). But regulation is overkill.
You make good points, but here's something else to consider: people tend to clump in social networks when they're not actively trying to avoid such detection. As it has become well-known that examining social networks is a useful technique, you can bet the smart terrorists have taken measures to foil this, and you can also bet the smart terrorists have had tutorials written for the not-so-smart terrorists. While it might still be useful for small-time terrorists, the big boys are most certainly extremely hard to nail down this way.
So, while I agree with you to some extent, I still have to think that these call records will not produce a lot of results against the targets we are most concerned about. I agree with you that the idea of tracking people who want to impeach Bush is ridiculous... but did you see the article about reporter phone records being used to find leaks? I think social networking would work much better for that task, where the people probably weren't trying as hard to cover their tracks, which is along the lines of what the previous poster was suggesting.
- "Brewery best practice tells us that the optimum amount of hops in the beverage is
..."
- "Brewery best practice tells us that the optimum amount of hops in beverages is
..."
The first is correct because it uses the definite article, which implies the speaker and the listener have an already established understanding about which beverage in particular is being referenced (and thus does not require more specific language). The second does not have that key implication as it lacks an article. In fact, since it lacks an article, it versy specifically refers to beverages in general.Compare to the article quote:
- "Patent law unambiguously grants owners of intellectual property
..."
It is most like the second version of the brewing example, because it also lacks an article. (The quote is a slightly different situation merely because intellectual property is uncountable, so the singular form is always used.) Strictly speaking, this phrasing refers to intellectual property in general, just like my version of your brewing example.A more correct version would refer to "such intellectual property", or "this intellectual property", or perhaps "said intellectual property". Or, for something completely different, it could be rephrased to avoid using the term "intellectual property" at all.
> Only a pointless flame war can guide me through this conundrum.
:-)
Oh for crying out loud -- why is parent moderated as "flamebait"?
The post is clearly tongue-in-cheek, and intended to be funny. "Flamebait refers to comments whose sole purpose is to insult and enrage." (emphasis added) At worst, parent is offtopic.
Now, of course, this comment is clearly offtopic.
> Modders start out as players; they are only interested in the game they're familiar with
Perhaps modders have a sense (whether true or not) that potential players are more interested in a game engine they're familair with. So, since they want to do mods that will be successful, they stick to commercial games.
In other words, if modders think there is more demand for a commerical mod, that's what most of them will want to create.
To use a similar comparison to come to a contrary conclusion: if we can't easily control fluctuations in the makeup of our own atmosphere, there's no reason to think we can easily cause controlled changes in Venus's atmosphere, much less stabilize it at a given makeup once it reaches that point.
There are 4 good things about this:
1) Making it a toll road might (after the information gets into the database) redirect GPS routed-traffic another way, since I think the algorithms usually avoid tolls.
2) If it doesn't direct traffic away, then the generated income would perhaps make it economically feasible to improve the road to conditions appropriate for the amount of traffic.
3) If you place the toll strategically, it will slow cars down just before the most dangerous area.
4) If it is a manned toll (though that probably increases the overhead cost of the toll itself), then the person working there could provide the warning and alternate directions.
Strange, now I'm getting 540 million (not 541 as you did) for the US, though before it was showing only 217 million.
And yes, that was after it finished tallying up its word counts.
Yes it does -- you can compare results between China, France, Germany, and the United States.
Try going to the site and search for the word peace, telling it to compare the results between the United States and Germany -- there are over twice as many sites returned in Germany than the United States.
With tactics like those, of course we're going to target the wrong people sometimes, and that just makes the insurgents all the more justified in the eyes of the rest of the people. If you can't even feed yourself, you might as well go out with a bang (sorry for the pun) that hurts your oppressors instead of wasting away (so the logic goes).
If you read some analysis about the election of Hamas, you'll find that many people who pay attention to this sort of thing believe the election results had more to do with Hamas's social programs in comparison to Fatah's corruption and lack of progress than it does with wanting to encourage violence (Hamas has had a cease-fire agreement with Israel for over a year, IIRC). Of course, that doesn't mean Hamas won't take their election as a "mandate", but it does mean that it is fallacious to assume the Palestinians have a majority support for violence and suicide bombings.
It's just like how things would have been if John Kerry had won in 2004 -- all that *really* would have said is that people were tired of Bush and so voted for the Other Guy. Yes, he had supporters, but I think a lot of his votes were people voting for NotBush, just like many Palestinians voted for NotFatah.
Wow, and I thought The Right to Read was a little too tinfoil-hat for me with the tracking who reads a document part.
Guess that shows how naive I am. This is really scary.
It is not a good thing to rob someone, even if your purpose is to distribute his wealth to those who have less. The ends do not justify the means.
This, again, is an opinion. I keep having the feeling that you state these opinions feeling that they are self-obvious facts; if that's just your style of expression (i.e. you realize it's just your opinion and that there are other opinions which are just as valid), then tell me, and I'll quit pointing out when you state your opinion as fact.
If taxation is "not a good thing", and the ends do not justify the means, then taxation is never justified, regardless of the purpose. If killing a human being is "not a good thing", then it would never be justified, even to save the lives of millions.
On the other hand, if taxation is ever justified, then taxation must not be inherently a bad thing, and/or it must be possible for ends to outweigh the negatives of means. I honestly can't tell from your comment whether you believe that taxation is always bad (since it infringes on liberties) or not; if you believe it is always bad, then there is no reason for us to continue this discussion, because I now understand your point of view and know why we disagree.
I see no reason to use such emotionally charged words as "rob", "charity", and "looting". I think that society, as a steward of the people, has a duty (or obligation, since you seem to prefer that word) to provide for certain basic needs of the people, if that society can reasonably afford to do so (i.e. I wouldn't want to deprive some of their basic needs while trying to provide the same for others). You can call it charity or looting or robbery, I'm not concerned with the label. What I am concerned about is whether people's basic needs are covered, and beyond that whether they are receiving from society in proportion to their contribution. I think that consitutes a more important goal for society than to ensure that individuals have as much freedom as possible to do what they want with whatever money they have, regardless of how they acquired it.
It can't be a right, because it is a demand that infringes the liberty of other people.
You seem to be implying that taxation infringes the liberty of other people. I agree that taxation (at times) takes money from me and spends it in ways that are wasteful, stupid, and counter to my moral beliefs. However, my idea of my liberties does not include freedom from contributing monitarily to society/government, even when I do not agree with the use to which that money will be put. I do not agree that the demand of providing health care for others infringes anyone else's rights, unless the cost to them would be so great that it would impair their ability to provide themselves with food, clothing, shelter, health care, etc. In a country as wealthy as the US, we (as a society) can definitely afford to do it.
someone very well might be "entitled to health care at other people's expense",
Sure, if that other person took on the obligation voluntarily.
Or, if society decides health care is a right, and provides it to people (funded via taxes). Society can take on the obligation voluntarily, despite the objections of indivual members. Those individuals involuntarily provide health care, since the government will force them to pay their taxes.
Perhaps this is all an issue of semantics. What if, instead of talking about someone's right to be provided with health care, I phrased it as society's duty to provide health care? For example, I think we agree that society has a duty to protect the rights of its citizens. I also believe society has a duty to provide food, clothing, shelter, and health care to its people, as long as we can reasonably afford to do so. Does that sit better with you? If not, I fear we disagree on a very fundamental level, and stand no chance of reconciling our opinions.
Health care is not a "fundamental human right".
While I would agree with you that health care is not a fundamental human right, there is no reason to think that it cannot be a right, just because it is a service. Times change, the rights and privileges society give people change, and the ideas about what is and is not a right change (because in reality, those ideas are opinions, though some people like to think they are universal facts).
I don't believe a person has the right to be fed, clothed, sheltered, and provided enough wealth to live in excess their entire life without ever doing anything even arguably productive. However, someone who inherits a very profitable company (for example) can do that. I would argue that, since this hypothetical person receives benefits from others without providing anything back (that money has to come from somewhere), they are doing it "at other people's expense". Yet many people view this possibility as following directly from basic rights (you may accumulate as much wealth as you can; you may give wealth to anyone; you may profit from ownership, even if that ownership is the only thing you contribute), so they would believe any attempt at interference to be a violation of those rights.
Thus, in essence, many people believe it is a right to be fed, clothed, and sheltered at another's expense (the inheritance example above), as long as it fits with the "rights" they infer from their economic perspective. A differing economic perspective might include the ideal "no one should go hungry while another has more than they need", which would also infer the right to be fed at the expense of others, but in a different set of circumstances. It's not hard to extend that to health care.
In short: someone very well might be "entitled to health care at other people's expense", despite your insistence to the contrary -- it depends greatly on your perspective, and the situation/society that particular someone is in.
I think when it says "misspellings", it doesn't mean the "I trenslated this miself" kind of misspelling in the email body, but rather the "this looks almost like a legitimate URL, unless you notice that it's not spelled correctly" kind of mispelling, which is usually spelled correctly in the link text. Like, for instance, www.citibank.com (as a hypothetical example).
This is why TFA goes on to say "[...] the technology did not flag the request because there was nothing in the Internet address to indicate the site was at all related to a financial institution." -- because they try to catch URLs that are similar to, but not quite the same as, legitimate URLs of financial institutions.
If the past 100 years is the warmest century for at least 12 centuries, and 2005 was the warmest year in over a century (with the next 4 runners up all occuring in the last 10 years), I don't like where our climate is headed (regardless of whose fault it is or isn't that it's heading there). :-(
No, that was my point. I was responding to someone who said "No matter how much they redact irrelavent text or try to keep users from gaining full access to the book, someone will.", which seemed to be claiming that Google's project should be forbidden simply because it makes the possibility of someone reading the book online for free more likely. I was countering by pointing out that libraries, by loaning out books, do the same thing. If someone doesn't believe libraries should be forbidden from loaning out books for that reason, (I claim) neither should Google Books be forbidden for that reason.
Google has no right to index all the books it wants and throw them online for anyone to browse.
[sarcasm] Yeah, and libraries have no right to purchase books and throw them on shelves for anyone to check out for free. Heaven forbid someone quote a book in a scholarly paper! Those writings are the work of the author, and shouldn't be stolen by those wanting to piggy-back off their labors! [/sarcasm]
It's called "fair use". So, the debate is (or at least should be) whether Google's project consitutes fair use or not. To state point-blank that they have no right to do it based on the idea of copyright is to ignore precedent, which says reasonable exceptions can (and should) be made. The right not to have your book quoted, for example, is something you don't have unless you specifically reserve it (can you even do that? I assume so...).
No matter how much they redact irrelavent text or try to keep users from gaining full access to the book, someone will.
I could argue that libraries make it easier for someone to get their hands on a book (for free) long enough to scan and possibly OCR it, then share it online via P2P. Just because something can be abused doesn't mean it should be forbidden. You have to weigh the costs and benefits.
Try taking a look at Hitman Pro 2 (http://www.hitmanpro.nl/) (the page is in Dutch, but the "Download" link near the top-right is in English (or maybe it's just the same word in Dutch), and the installer and program can run in English).
While you are correct that multiple programs are often needed, Hitman Pro is a meta- spyware/virus remover which makes that issue much simpler for the user. It downloads, installs, and/or updates (whichever are necessary, and giving you the option to read all EULAs etc or not) serveral antispyware and antivirus programs and runs them all, giving a comprehensive report at the end. You can configure it to leave out any programs you choose. One great thing about this is that even a user who doesn't/can't keep track of which programs exist that are good can be pretty safe with this, because if a new (good) program comes out, Hitman Pro can start using it without the user having to find out that it is a good program and going to the effort to download it. Hitman Pro does a few things itself (rather than relying 100% on other programs), some of which include useful innoculations that most people would have to do by hand otherwise.
In short, although the good side is disorganized, I think Hitman Pro mitigates to a large extent many of the effects of that disorganization.