Now when we go bird hunting he has decided to no longer point rabbits because he has deduced, correctly, that I will shock him if he does.
He's associated an action with a feeling. He knows that "if I do this, bad thing will happen". Now try training him to not point at rabbits between 3 and 5, but to always point at them between 7 and 9. He can't even grasp such concepts, let alone learn to prepare for them.
They learn a schedule based on their needs and desires, but they (as far as I know) don't have any understanding of time. Your dog simply syncs his natural rhythm with your own schedule. Now, if he were to come to you at 3pm and remind you that he needs to be walked in 2 hours, THEN you'd have a pretty special dog:)
Yes, you're right, I should have qualified the phrase "genetically wired" with the word "probably". Whatever the case though, there's no question that bird nesting behavior is completely different from this chimps abilities.
To be fair, after years of juvenile Bush-bashing by the democrats around here, it's kind of nice to see republicans returning the favour:)
During the Bush presidency there were WAY too many comments just like his which got modded "funny" or "insightful". Maybe seeing it from the other side will help people realize that such idiotic partisan drivel should be modded "troll", regardless of which party it's aimed at.
How is building a pile of stones to throw different than a bird building a nest before laying eggs?
Because building a nest is genetically wired into the bird. Make the bird sterile, and it'll keep building nests anyway. Moreover, it's a behavior which has existed for millions of years. It's a completely different phenomenon than a chimp learning to use objects as weapons.
The big thing is that it demonstrates that chimpanzees have some rudimentary understanding of time. He's obviously able to observe his current situation, remember it as a past event, detect a recurring pattern, deduce that it's likely to repeat in the future, decide on an action to be carried out at a future time, and prepare materials required to carry it out. That's no small feat.
If I go onto a Disney children's forum and post nothing but swear words, and Disney deletes it, is that censorship too?
Uh, yes?
I don't know why people assume that "censorship" is always negative or oppressive. There are time when censorship is completely legitimate.
I think that this misapprehension was what lead you to link the words "government" and "censorship" as somehow inseparable. We generally consider government censorship to be unacceptable, but we accept as essential the right of private individuals and companies to exercise censorship on their premises and in their publications.
You know, I get the same, or similar, response every time I talk to a proponent of any type of bullshit.
"You don't see how Elvis could still alive? Gee, you sure are closed minded..."
Accusing people of being closed-minded or unimaginative seems to be the equivalent of saying "I have no evidence and no clue what I'm talking about, so I'm going to attack you just so you'll shut up".
Oh good god. Pick an industry and grow it "forever" and see where it takes you. Real estate? Fast Food? Cell phones? Even securities? Every market can saturate.
How was it MY fault when the FIRST WORDS out of the cops mouth were, and I quote: "I don't which makes me more fucking sick. God Damned niggers or dirty fucking hippies."
I don't know, man, all the cops I've talked to always started the conversation with:
"I don't know which I love more: african-americans or gay people! They're ALL just SOOO fabulous!"
(and before you ask, yes, I'm being sarcastic)
Quite frankly, I find your little story hard to believe. Yeah, there are some cops who are complete dicks, but even those who are racist hicks tend to know better than to display it in such an open manner. Next time, hit the little "record" button on your iPod; not only will you have a better shot at convincing people like me, but you'll also have evidence to present against him in a court of law. Probably get yourself a decent size payout, as an added bonus.
So while it is nice if you live in Mr Rogers neighborhood where the cops are nice and friendly, traveling all over the south I can say that neighborhood ain't down here.
I've been to several southern states on business, and had nothing but pleasant experiences with your police officers. I thought for sure one of them would give me a hard time because of my Canadian plates, my FSM decal, or my "EVOLVE!" fish, but they were all extremely professional. Amazingly, I even had a black guy in the car with me once, and the combination of niggers, evolution, canadians, and blasphemy STILL wasn't enough to send the cop into a tizzy. I guess miracles do happen, huh? Either that or you're some kind of shit-magnet.
I have taught my boys as I was taught. Don't trust them, don't talk to them, ask for a lawyer if you are confronted with one.
Aaaand, that completely explains why you're a shit-magnet. Congratulations, you've just gauranteed that your boys will have as much trouble with the law as you are having. Way to go, Dad!
Despite what you see on TV, a fair trial is not something you will get.
When I was younger, I got nailed for a bunch of vehicle-related things which could have resulted in a complete loss of my license, thousands of dollars in fines, and possibly some jail time on top. Instead, the investigating officer reduced the initial charges, the prosecutor recommended leniency, and the judge handed me a grand total of 2 points and a $100 fine. All without ever speaking to a lawyer.
I don't know why you're so suspicious of the judicial system, but (almost) all my experiences have been extremely positive. And while it's certainly possible that the difference is due to the fact that we live in two different locations, I think a much more likely explanation is that your single experience was a statistical fluke. Sure, sometimes things don't go your way. To take that fact and then decide that "a fair rial is not something you will get" is completely preposterous.
I can certainly sympathize with your complaint about lost time and income in cases where you were clearly innocent. I did have one such experience myself, and I also paid instead of wasting my time going to court. In retrospect, that was the wrong thing to do from a moral standpoint, but it's a shitty situation either way. However, such bureaucratic mixups have nothing to do with what we were originally discussing. The initial situation with the police officers is more in line with what I was talking about, and your response in that situation was perfect (as far as I can tell). Do you seriously think things would have gone better for you had you been a dick, and started screaming about your right to see a lawyer?
Only partially. Many instances are outright wars for resources. IE territory, trade opportunities, etc...
Yes - I was over-generalizing. Obviously many criminal endeavors are inherently violent, such as armed robbery or kidnapping. I was mainly referring to inter-gang violence.
Because of the US justice system; many of the more traditional punishments become impossible/impractical.
To an extent, yes. If it were possible to allow criminals to settle their differences in civil court without the evidence presented there being admissible against them in criminal court, you'd probably see a drop in violence. On the other hand, the criminal world tends to be very "macho", so many of them would prefer to kill their opposition even if more peaceful (and legal) means were available.
Plus, more importantly, such a system simply wouldn't be viable. It would offer too many loopholes for criminals to avoid prosecution.
Of course, all this is why I favor legalizing drugs and prostitution; I believe that the cost in money, lives, and liberty with them being illegal exceeds the costs of making it legal
Of course it does. Prostitution and the drug trade are obviously profitable business, otherwise criminals wouldn't bother with them. By making them illegal, all you're doing is turning over an entire market segment to the underworld. You're essentially creating "jobs" for criminals, and throwing away a source of tax revenue. And then, as if that weren't bad enough, you're wasting billions of dollars trying to catch, prosecute, and incarcerate these people. The "War on Drugs" should be renamed "The Criminal Element and Law Enforcement Stimulus Plan".
Give us a healthy shot towards balancing the budget, at least.
Yep. Without a doubt, trying to control these types of "crimes" is the single most wasteful act of our governments. If Obama really wanted to stimulate the economy, repealing current drug and prostitution laws would be a great start.
In the end I'm sure that $1k was a boon to the small towns economy. I wouldn't doubt if the judge got a piece of it.
You were doing GREAT until you hit this point:)
You're essentially saying that there was an innocuous mixup at the DMV... therefore there must be some grand conspiracy to rob you and enrich the local magistrate.
Sorry, but I disagree. In situations like these I find a good rule of thumb is:
"Never blame on malice that which can be explained by incompetence."
Government beurocracy is bad enough without involving conspiracy theories.
And I agree with the other commenter - you should have sued afterwards.
Serious - they have internal laws and punishments, engage in both trade and wars for territory and valuables.
Oh, I'm quite aware of that. In fact, even other species of the Great Ape family show some rudimentary grasp of the concepts of trade, punishment, reward, etc.
I've been curious as to what would happen if the gangs had access to neutral civilian courts for addressing concerns in their black market trading... Would it drop the violence?
Probably not in the short term, but in the long run almost certainly.
Criminalizing anything tends to open that entire market to the criminal element. The criminal element depends on violence to enforce rules, right perceived wrongs, and maintain dominance in a given market. Ergo, the more opportunity you provide for profit through illegal means, the more crime you'll have, and the more violence you'll have. Gang-on-gang violence is, essentially, their version of a justice system.
In the same vein, the criminal (and civil) justice system is nothing more than a proxy for state-ordained force/violence. When a criminal is persecuted in court for murder, the government is using force so that the victims family and friends don't have to. When you sue someone for a contract violation, you are using threat of government force in order to get them to do what you want. Without the justice system, the only means you'd have for dealing with such situations is violence. If someone cheated you, you'd either beat the crap out of them or invite others to cheat you. If someone murdered your family member, you'd either kill them in return or submit meekly to anyone with a weapon. The whole reason we have a justice system is to focus the use of force in the hands of the government, and then regulate it in a fair manner. If the criminal element had a similar systems, they wouldn't be the criminal element. They'd be corporations:)
And here's the bigger problem: The border agents say they saw these files/images. What if they were wrong or lying, and there really is no 'bad file'? Is this guy going to be held in contempt and/or go to jail for not turning over something that might never have existed?
And here's the BIGGER bigger problem: what if the jury is corrupt and convicts him based on no evidence at all? Will this guy go to jail based on something that might never have existed?
You know, at some point you just have to stop playing these "what if" games. If you can provide evidence that the cops are corrupt, then do so. Otherwise, let's not give the guy a break just because of baseless paranoia.
Cop: Hello sir, how are you today? You: I WANT MY LAWYER! Cop: Uh. I'm just saying h... You: I WANT MY LAWYER! Cop:.... You: I WANT MY LAWYER! (just for good measure) Cop: May I see some ID, Sir? You: I WANT MY LAWYER! Cop: Ok, let's talk at the station, then. You: I WANT MY LAWYER! Cop: Are you resisting arrest? You: I WANT MY LAWYER! Cop: Get on the ground with your hands above your head! You: I WANT MY LAWY... ARGH! DON'T TAZE ME BRO!
Result: You get arrested, confined, investigated, and are more likely to attract police attention in the future. Your day is ruined, you've wasted their time, and caused a scene for no reason. And all you had to do was NOT be a dick.
I've had friends who act like assholes when pulled over for speeding slightly, and then wonder why they end up with 3 different tickets. Meanwhile I've been pulled over 5 times in the last 2 years, and been let go with a warning, every time. Cops are people too - if you're polite, they'll be polite, if you act like a dick, they'll return the favour.
Funny:) When I first read your comment, I thought "... wow, that's a seriously cool refutation".
Of course, after 15 seconds of thought, it becomes apparent that your analogy doesn't work. laissez-faire capitalism wouldn't exist in a vacuum, and it's not an argument for anarchy - it's simply the rejection of government control over markets. Laws against fraud, theft, and murder would still apply.
So the only way to make up for past mistakes is to lose a war? The only way that citizens can earn the right to speak is by forcing their country to be partitioned?
Look, next time you hit that "preview" button, have a look over your message and take a minute to actually THINK about what you've written. Contemplate it's internal logic. Consider whether it makes a reasonable and relevant point. Correct any faults that you find. You'll be surprised by how much of an improvement such a simple change can make to almost all discussions.
Except that the populace have voted for a second candidate against the one supported by the ulama before.
Yipee. I can imagine the Ayatollah's conversation before THAT election - "do they have any hope in hell of winning? no? ok, let them run!".
What was the party called? The Jewish United Western Homosexual Pigdogs Alliance? The acronym alone would have been enough to keep them from winning...
I hardly think Americans are in a place to criticise in any case, having openly supported the Shah's ousting their first ever democratically elected ruler.
That's simple bigotry on your part. It's the equivalent of saying that Germans have no right to comment on the actions of Israel because they once tried to exterminate the Jews. Even if we accept your criticism of past US actions, it's no justification for telling an entire nation of people to STFU. It's ignorant, it's bigoted, and it has no place in civilized discussion.
Slashdot Mirror
He's associated an action with a feeling. He knows that "if I do this, bad thing will happen". Now try training him to not point at rabbits between 3 and 5, but to always point at them between 7 and 9. He can't even grasp such concepts, let alone learn to prepare for them.
They learn a schedule based on their needs and desires, but they (as far as I know) don't have any understanding of time. Your dog simply syncs his natural rhythm with your own schedule. Now, if he were to come to you at 3pm and remind you that he needs to be walked in 2 hours, THEN you'd have a pretty special dog :)
Yes, you're right, I should have qualified the phrase "genetically wired" with the word "probably". Whatever the case though, there's no question that bird nesting behavior is completely different from this chimps abilities.
To be fair, after years of juvenile Bush-bashing by the democrats around here, it's kind of nice to see republicans returning the favour :)
During the Bush presidency there were WAY too many comments just like his which got modded "funny" or "insightful". Maybe seeing it from the other side will help people realize that such idiotic partisan drivel should be modded "troll", regardless of which party it's aimed at.
Because building a nest is genetically wired into the bird. Make the bird sterile, and it'll keep building nests anyway. Moreover, it's a behavior which has existed for millions of years. It's a completely different phenomenon than a chimp learning to use objects as weapons.
The big thing is that it demonstrates that chimpanzees have some rudimentary understanding of time. He's obviously able to observe his current situation, remember it as a past event, detect a recurring pattern, deduce that it's likely to repeat in the future, decide on an action to be carried out at a future time, and prepare materials required to carry it out. That's no small feat.
Yah. That would be why I specifically linked to the "Viruses" section.
I can honestly say that I don't doubt that at all.
Hah.
And here I always thought that you guys with low UID's actually knew a thing or two about computers.
Uh, yes?
I don't know why people assume that "censorship" is always negative or oppressive. There are time when censorship is completely legitimate.
I think that this misapprehension was what lead you to link the words "government" and "censorship" as somehow inseparable. We generally consider government censorship to be unacceptable, but we accept as essential the right of private individuals and companies to exercise censorship on their premises and in their publications.
*sigh*
You know, I get the same, or similar, response every time I talk to a proponent of any type of bullshit.
"You don't see how Elvis could still alive? Gee, you sure are closed minded ..."
Accusing people of being closed-minded or unimaginative seems to be the equivalent of saying "I have no evidence and no clue what I'm talking about, so I'm going to attack you just so you'll shut up".
You mean "poon fart"?
For those days when you want to smell like a queef ...
I can prove you wrong with one word:
Porno.
Sorry, yes. The US takes in 200,000+ refugees annually. Refugees, as opposed to immigrants, generally tend to be poorly educated and impoverished.
And then there's the Mexicans .... :)
Why couldn't you?
I don't know, man, all the cops I've talked to always started the conversation with:
"I don't know which I love more: african-americans or gay people! They're ALL just SOOO fabulous!"
(and before you ask, yes, I'm being sarcastic)
Quite frankly, I find your little story hard to believe. Yeah, there are some cops who are complete dicks, but even those who are racist hicks tend to know better than to display it in such an open manner. Next time, hit the little "record" button on your iPod; not only will you have a better shot at convincing people like me, but you'll also have evidence to present against him in a court of law. Probably get yourself a decent size payout, as an added bonus.
I've been to several southern states on business, and had nothing but pleasant experiences with your police officers. I thought for sure one of them would give me a hard time because of my Canadian plates, my FSM decal, or my "EVOLVE!" fish, but they were all extremely professional. Amazingly, I even had a black guy in the car with me once, and the combination of niggers, evolution, canadians, and blasphemy STILL wasn't enough to send the cop into a tizzy. I guess miracles do happen, huh? Either that or you're some kind of shit-magnet.
Aaaand, that completely explains why you're a shit-magnet. Congratulations, you've just gauranteed that your boys will have as much trouble with the law as you are having. Way to go, Dad!
When I was younger, I got nailed for a bunch of vehicle-related things which could have resulted in a complete loss of my license, thousands of dollars in fines, and possibly some jail time on top. Instead, the investigating officer reduced the initial charges, the prosecutor recommended leniency, and the judge handed me a grand total of 2 points and a $100 fine. All without ever speaking to a lawyer.
I don't know why you're so suspicious of the judicial system, but (almost) all my experiences have been extremely positive. And while it's certainly possible that the difference is due to the fact that we live in two different locations, I think a much more likely explanation is that your single experience was a statistical fluke. Sure, sometimes things don't go your way. To take that fact and then decide that "a fair rial is not something you will get" is completely preposterous.
I can certainly sympathize with your complaint about lost time and income in cases where you were clearly innocent. I did have one such experience myself, and I also paid instead of wasting my time going to court. In retrospect, that was the wrong thing to do from a moral standpoint, but it's a shitty situation either way. However, such bureaucratic mixups have nothing to do with what we were originally discussing. The initial situation with the police officers is more in line with what I was talking about, and your response in that situation was perfect (as far as I can tell). Do you seriously think things would have gone better for you had you been a dick, and started screaming about your right to see a lawyer?
Yes - I was over-generalizing. Obviously many criminal endeavors are inherently violent, such as armed robbery or kidnapping. I was mainly referring to inter-gang violence.
To an extent, yes. If it were possible to allow criminals to settle their differences in civil court without the evidence presented there being admissible against them in criminal court, you'd probably see a drop in violence. On the other hand, the criminal world tends to be very "macho", so many of them would prefer to kill their opposition even if more peaceful (and legal) means were available.
Plus, more importantly, such a system simply wouldn't be viable. It would offer too many loopholes for criminals to avoid prosecution.
Of course it does. Prostitution and the drug trade are obviously profitable business, otherwise criminals wouldn't bother with them. By making them illegal, all you're doing is turning over an entire market segment to the underworld. You're essentially creating "jobs" for criminals, and throwing away a source of tax revenue. And then, as if that weren't bad enough, you're wasting billions of dollars trying to catch, prosecute, and incarcerate these people. The "War on Drugs" should be renamed "The Criminal Element and Law Enforcement Stimulus Plan".
Yep. Without a doubt, trying to control these types of "crimes" is the single most wasteful act of our governments. If Obama really wanted to stimulate the economy, repealing current drug and prostitution laws would be a great start.
So what you're saying is that there's a 95% probability that I'm right?
Cool, thanks!
You were doing GREAT until you hit this point :)
You're essentially saying that there was an innocuous mixup at the DMV ... therefore there must be some grand conspiracy to rob you and enrich the local magistrate.
Sorry, but I disagree. In situations like these I find a good rule of thumb is:
"Never blame on malice that which can be explained by incompetence."
Government beurocracy is bad enough without involving conspiracy theories.
And I agree with the other commenter - you should have sued afterwards.
Yuhuh. You need to go back to my previous comment, and read the part where I said:
I've had friends who act like assholes when pulled over for speeding slightly, and then wonder why they end up with 3 different tickets.
Somehow, I get the feeling that you're every bit as clueless as those friends.
Oh, I'm quite aware of that. In fact, even other species of the Great Ape family show some rudimentary grasp of the concepts of trade, punishment, reward, etc.
Probably not in the short term, but in the long run almost certainly.
Criminalizing anything tends to open that entire market to the criminal element. The criminal element depends on violence to enforce rules, right perceived wrongs, and maintain dominance in a given market. Ergo, the more opportunity you provide for profit through illegal means, the more crime you'll have, and the more violence you'll have. Gang-on-gang violence is, essentially, their version of a justice system.
In the same vein, the criminal (and civil) justice system is nothing more than a proxy for state-ordained force/violence. When a criminal is persecuted in court for murder, the government is using force so that the victims family and friends don't have to. When you sue someone for a contract violation, you are using threat of government force in order to get them to do what you want. Without the justice system, the only means you'd have for dealing with such situations is violence. If someone cheated you, you'd either beat the crap out of them or invite others to cheat you. If someone murdered your family member, you'd either kill them in return or submit meekly to anyone with a weapon. The whole reason we have a justice system is to focus the use of force in the hands of the government, and then regulate it in a fair manner. If the criminal element had a similar systems, they wouldn't be the criminal element. They'd be corporations :)
And here's the BIGGER bigger problem: what if the jury is corrupt and convicts him based on no evidence at all? Will this guy go to jail based on something that might never have existed?
You know, at some point you just have to stop playing these "what if" games. If you can provide evidence that the cops are corrupt, then do so. Otherwise, let's not give the guy a break just because of baseless paranoia.
Yeah, that's a great idea.
Cop: Hello sir, how are you today? .... ... ARGH! DON'T TAZE ME BRO!
You: I WANT MY LAWYER!
Cop: Uh. I'm just saying h...
You: I WANT MY LAWYER!
Cop:
You: I WANT MY LAWYER! (just for good measure)
Cop: May I see some ID, Sir?
You: I WANT MY LAWYER!
Cop: Ok, let's talk at the station, then.
You: I WANT MY LAWYER!
Cop: Are you resisting arrest?
You: I WANT MY LAWYER!
Cop: Get on the ground with your hands above your head!
You: I WANT MY LAWY
Result: You get arrested, confined, investigated, and are more likely to attract police attention in the future. Your day is ruined, you've wasted their time, and caused a scene for no reason. And all you had to do was NOT be a dick.
I've had friends who act like assholes when pulled over for speeding slightly, and then wonder why they end up with 3 different tickets. Meanwhile I've been pulled over 5 times in the last 2 years, and been let go with a warning, every time. Cops are people too - if you're polite, they'll be polite, if you act like a dick, they'll return the favour.
Funny :) When I first read your comment, I thought "... wow, that's a seriously cool refutation".
Of course, after 15 seconds of thought, it becomes apparent that your analogy doesn't work. laissez-faire capitalism wouldn't exist in a vacuum, and it's not an argument for anarchy - it's simply the rejection of government control over markets. Laws against fraud, theft, and murder would still apply.
Huh?
So the only way to make up for past mistakes is to lose a war? The only way that citizens can earn the right to speak is by forcing their country to be partitioned?
Look, next time you hit that "preview" button, have a look over your message and take a minute to actually THINK about what you've written. Contemplate it's internal logic. Consider whether it makes a reasonable and relevant point. Correct any faults that you find. You'll be surprised by how much of an improvement such a simple change can make to almost all discussions.
Yipee. I can imagine the Ayatollah's conversation before THAT election - "do they have any hope in hell of winning? no? ok, let them run!".
What was the party called? The Jewish United Western Homosexual Pigdogs Alliance? The acronym alone would have been enough to keep them from winning ...
That's simple bigotry on your part. It's the equivalent of saying that Germans have no right to comment on the actions of Israel because they once tried to exterminate the Jews. Even if we accept your criticism of past US actions, it's no justification for telling an entire nation of people to STFU. It's ignorant, it's bigoted, and it has no place in civilized discussion.