A king on a grand a month? That's 12,000 a year. I'm sorry, but I'm calling BS. If you had said you live in WEST Bumblefuck, or maybe Crooked Stick, OK. But East Bumblefuck? No way.
Evidence can be irrefutable, and that is what the original sentence said. The theory of atoms is a couple thousand years old, but Einstein merely gave that theory a boost which couldn't be explained any other way, hence the word "irrefutable" would apply.
It's not prison, it's jail. You know, the place where people who can't pay bail are kept before their trials. Supposedly, they are presumed innocent before they are found guilty, so why do you think it's right to treat them badly?
All this macho "throw the book at them" talk is indicative of a serious aversion to thinking.
If it were me I wouldn't have been as gracious. I would have been more like Komarov (I think) who was the pilot of Soyuz 1. The spacecraft was rushed, and launched when it wasn't ready. On reentry, the parachutes didn't deploy properly and it was clear to everyone that the mission was doomed. Komarov spent the last 20,000 feet of his life cussing out everyone he could think of for fucking up the spacecraft and killing him.
Wrong instruments shouldn't cause crashes any more than a broken speedometer in your car will cause a crash. Competent pilots can fly with their backups, or their eyes.
What I meant by unequal was that the community will pay the price if Microsoft decides to roll over on them. If Linus decides to screw over the entire Linux world, there will be no price to pay, but a fork in the code.
If you look at Microsoft's Shared Source license page, there's a bunch of different programs for different pieces of shared source. link here. These shared sources don't seem to create an open community, because first it's not open, and it's not a community. Open implies free, and it's clear that these sources aren't complete. You're still stuck on Microsoft's teat for the remainder of the OS. And community implies a group of equal collaborative partners. As far as I can tell, the partners are not equal. Microsoft could decide to completely change the APIs one day and leave everybody in the dirt. By missing an open community, they miss the best feature of open source.
A case of.22 rounds can also kill thousands of people. The trick is to deliver each round (or dose of Sarin) on target. Seems like the definition of WMD should have a way to account for the difficulty of getting Sarin on target. A dozen shells in reality could kill thousands of people, just as you say. But likely it is not.
I've got one of these. About 1 time in 5 it would never shut off, cooking the batteries. I finally got sick of it ruining my cells, and bought an inexpensive trickle charger (Maxell Ni-MH & Ni-Cd model P2000). It's never failed to shut off. And I can easily live with the very long charge times.
Those were the days. Adminstrator discovers *one* hacker, catches him, then has enough time to write a book about it before worrying about the next one.
Not everyone who asks you a question is an opponent. I haven't made an argument at all. Go back and reread.
What you have done here is attacked someone who simply asked for a further justification. But more than that, you've failed to persuade someone who could have been convinced with a logical argument.
You were the positive claimant, and I was the questioner. Therefore the burden of proof lies with you, and your logic must be supported to the satisfaction of the questioner.
But instead of realizing that I was just asking questions, asking you to further explain your position, you assumed that I was taking an adversarial stance. That was wrong.
OK, let's go back to my first message. Basically, I explained why your argument wasn't persuasive. I outlined very specifically two reasons (numbered helpfully 1 and 2).
If you can address those reasons directly and effectively, then you may persuade me. But, what you chose to do is interpret my questions as an attack, ignore the problems that I helpfully outlined to you, and attack me.
You're assuming all sorts of things about me that are pretty amusing from my standpoint. Yes, that's right, I'm snickering at you. But, if you explain yourself you can wipe that smile right off my face. As I mentioned above, I clearly outlined my two enumerated objections, and it's a simple matter to just address those objections.
Can you do that? If you can, then we will both be happy.
And antiseptic argument by pedantism is even more annoying.
But, it's correct. You've got to be logical, and show your logic.
The reason is that the natural mode of genetic propagation is the mode that created absolutely every living thing that came to be on this planet for millennia. For a fairly clever ape to jump up and say, "Hey, I can make changes in a completely different way -- damn the consequences" is the ultimate in hubris and recklessness.
The argument that the "natural" mode is the proper one, because it's always done that way is not persuasive. And, while we are indeed clever apes, the judgement that tinkering with DNA molecules is hubris is a cultural and moral value. Hardly absolute, and completely unsupported. You're in essence arguing that yours is the only right and moral way to do something. Hardly a position to be distinguishing hubris from.
That's because I don't know whether the consequences of artificial change will be good or bad or horrendously tragic, and neither do you. That's what makes it so dangerous.
Completely sidestepped the question. You claimed that natural change is good, and artificial change is bad. Now, support that claim. Your statement above is an argument from ignorance. When something is not known, there is no logical support to draw a conclusion from.
You sound pretty sure of yourself, there, cowboy. Can you really say that a plague won't result from fiddling with something's DNA?
I'm not making a claim, you are. The burden of proof is yours. Either back up your assertion that artificial change is somehow worse than natural change, or admit that you're speculating. And speculation is just another word for 'imagining.' And, I am not a cowboy.
Hey, call it faith if you want to, but I'd rather take my chances with the natural forces that my body has evolved to cope with over eons than risk everything on the whim of some DNA hacker in a lab coat.
Faith? First you make some ridiculous claims, and I ask you to explain yourself. That's the natural way things work. Either you can explain yourself, or you have to admit that you haven't thought out your position.
I'm beginning to believe that you're a paid PR flack for a biotech firm. It's well known that they troll discussion boards to inject corporate propaganda into the stream of consciousness. You're response was just a little too quick and prepared, if you know what I mean.
Ad hominem attack. I'm a computer programmer at IBM. And, a person who knows how to argue logically. Though I need not prove anything, check my web page, and you'll see that I am nothing of what you imagine.
Argument by analogy is not persuasive. And car analogies are the most annoying. Besides the analogy, the only other point you seem to make is that there is a "normal" mode of genetic change. If I am misunderstanding you, let me know.
But, you haven't done two things, which would have bolstered your argument:
1) You didn't define what and why a certain mode of genetic change is normal. Is it because it's done by nature and not by man? (what's the difference?) Is it because the genetic changes are imprecise? (what about precise changes to DNA that a natural virus causes?)
2) You didn't explain exactly why a natural change in DNA is good, but an artificial one is bad. Your example of "plague" is a red herring. The issue at hand is not about harmful products of genetic change, it's about the mode of the genetic change itself. We've already seen that both natural and artificial genetic changes can arrive at dangerous conclusions, so the argument that artificial genetic changes should be avoided because of that is irrelevant.
This is appalling news. We must write our congress people to tell them we want a war against the lack of drugs. This heretical coffee plant must be wiped out. Coffee should have caffeine!
Slashdot Mirror
A king on a grand a month? That's 12,000 a year. I'm sorry, but I'm calling BS. If you had said you live in WEST Bumblefuck, or maybe Crooked Stick, OK. But East Bumblefuck? No way.
Evidence can be irrefutable, and that is what the original sentence said. The theory of atoms is a couple thousand years old, but Einstein merely gave that theory a boost which couldn't be explained any other way, hence the word "irrefutable" would apply.
Folks, if you've never read a poem, then you won't understand poetic license.
It's not prison, it's jail. You know, the place where people who can't pay bail are kept before their trials. Supposedly, they are presumed innocent before they are found guilty, so why do you think it's right to treat them badly?
All this macho "throw the book at them" talk is indicative of a serious aversion to thinking.
If it were me I wouldn't have been as gracious. I would have been more like Komarov (I think) who was the pilot of Soyuz 1. The spacecraft was rushed, and launched when it wasn't ready. On reentry, the parachutes didn't deploy properly and it was clear to everyone that the mission was doomed. Komarov spent the last 20,000 feet of his life cussing out everyone he could think of for fucking up the spacecraft and killing him.
If I fed my dog a set of Scrabble tiles he could have crapped a better manual.
I don't care if it's plagarism. I'm going to steal that line and use it frequently. Thanks.
Wrong instruments shouldn't cause crashes any more than a broken speedometer in your car will cause a crash. Competent pilots can fly with their backups, or their eyes.
It was either go samurai, or go commando. I think they made a wise decision.
Judging by the hundreds of viruses in my inbox, I'm getting a good whiff of second-hand windows.
What I meant by unequal was that the community will pay the price if Microsoft decides to roll over on them. If Linus decides to screw over the entire Linux world, there will be no price to pay, but a fork in the code.
I feel like a miserable failure, because apparently nobody hates me enough to write such a lovely flame about me. Brought a tear to my eye.
That line kinda gives away the joke
Rather typical of punchlines, wouldn't you say?
If you look at Microsoft's Shared Source license page, there's a bunch of different programs for different pieces of shared source. link here. These shared sources don't seem to create an open community, because first it's not open, and it's not a community. Open implies free, and it's clear that these sources aren't complete. You're still stuck on Microsoft's teat for the remainder of the OS. And community implies a group of equal collaborative partners. As far as I can tell, the partners are not equal. Microsoft could decide to completely change the APIs one day and leave everybody in the dirt. By missing an open community, they miss the best feature of open source.
For some, a magnetic attraction is inevitable.
A case of .22 rounds can also kill thousands of people. The trick is to deliver each round (or dose of Sarin) on target. Seems like the definition of WMD should have a way to account for the difficulty of getting Sarin on target. A dozen shells in reality could kill thousands of people, just as you say. But likely it is not.
I've got one of these. About 1 time in 5 it would never shut off, cooking the batteries. I finally got sick of it ruining my cells, and bought an inexpensive trickle charger (Maxell Ni-MH & Ni-Cd model P2000). It's never failed to shut off.
And I can easily live with the very long charge times.
He did use the word 'imagine', no?
Those were the days. Adminstrator discovers *one* hacker, catches him, then has enough time to write a book about it before worrying about the next one.
I would have thought that getting people to live in your reproduction of London as you fired the V-2 at them would have been more difficult.
Not everyone who asks you a question is an opponent. I haven't made an argument at all. Go back and reread.
What you have done here is attacked someone who simply asked for a further justification. But more than that, you've failed to persuade someone who could have been convinced with a logical argument.
You were the positive claimant, and I was the questioner. Therefore the burden of proof lies with you, and your logic must be supported to the satisfaction of the questioner.
But instead of realizing that I was just asking questions, asking you to further explain your position, you assumed that I was taking an adversarial stance. That was wrong.
Something for you to think about...
OK, let's go back to my first message. Basically, I explained why your argument wasn't persuasive. I outlined very specifically two reasons (numbered helpfully 1 and 2).
If you can address those reasons directly and effectively, then you may persuade me. But, what you chose to do is interpret my questions as an attack, ignore the problems that I helpfully outlined to you, and attack me.
You're assuming all sorts of things about me that are pretty amusing from my standpoint. Yes, that's right, I'm snickering at you. But, if you explain yourself you can wipe that smile right off my face. As I mentioned above, I clearly outlined my two enumerated objections, and it's a simple matter to just address those objections.
Can you do that? If you can, then we will both be happy.
And antiseptic argument by pedantism is even more annoying.
But, it's correct. You've got to be logical, and show your logic.
The reason is that the natural mode of genetic propagation is the mode that created absolutely every living thing that came to be on this planet for millennia. For a fairly clever ape to jump up and say, "Hey, I can make changes in a completely different way -- damn the consequences" is the ultimate in hubris and recklessness.
The argument that the "natural" mode is the proper one, because it's always done that way is not persuasive. And, while we are indeed clever apes, the judgement that tinkering with DNA molecules is hubris is a cultural and moral value. Hardly absolute, and completely unsupported. You're in essence arguing that yours is the only right and moral way to do something. Hardly a position to be distinguishing hubris from.
That's because I don't know whether the consequences of artificial change will be good or bad or horrendously tragic, and neither do you. That's what makes it so dangerous.
Completely sidestepped the question. You claimed that natural change is good, and artificial change is bad. Now, support that claim. Your statement above is an argument from ignorance. When something is not known, there is no logical support to draw a conclusion from.
You sound pretty sure of yourself, there, cowboy. Can you really say that a plague won't result from fiddling with something's DNA?
I'm not making a claim, you are. The burden of proof is yours. Either back up your assertion that artificial change is somehow worse than natural change, or admit that you're speculating. And speculation is just another word for 'imagining.' And, I am not a cowboy.
Hey, call it faith if you want to, but I'd rather take my chances with the natural forces that my body has evolved to cope with over eons than risk everything on the whim of some DNA hacker in a lab coat.
Faith? First you make some ridiculous claims, and I ask you to explain yourself. That's the natural way things work. Either you can explain yourself, or you have to admit that you haven't thought out your position.
I'm beginning to believe that you're a paid PR flack for a biotech firm. It's well known that they troll discussion boards to inject corporate propaganda into the stream of consciousness. You're response was just a little too quick and prepared, if you know what I mean.
Ad hominem attack. I'm a computer programmer at IBM. And, a person who knows how to argue logically. Though I need not prove anything, check my web page, and you'll see that I am nothing of what you imagine.
Argument by analogy is not persuasive. And car analogies are the most annoying. Besides the analogy, the only other point you seem to make is that there is a "normal" mode of genetic change. If I am misunderstanding you, let me know.
But, you haven't done two things, which would have bolstered your argument:
1) You didn't define what and why a certain mode of genetic change is normal. Is it because it's done by nature and not by man? (what's the difference?) Is it because the genetic changes are imprecise? (what about precise changes to DNA that a natural virus causes?)
2) You didn't explain exactly why a natural change in DNA is good, but an artificial one is bad. Your example of "plague" is a red herring. The issue at hand is not about harmful products of genetic change, it's about the mode of the genetic change itself. We've already seen that both natural and artificial genetic changes can arrive at dangerous conclusions, so the argument that artificial genetic changes should be avoided because of that is irrelevant.
This is appalling news. We must write our congress people to tell them we want a war against the lack of drugs. This heretical coffee plant must be wiped out. Coffee should have caffeine!
But are they honest? I mean, if you buy a judge in Utah, do they stay bought?