There is no justification. No one is arguing that Iran is a free and pluralistic society, simply that they have been invaded and meddled with before and their security concerns are legitimate even though the regime sucks horribly.
On the other hand shooting its own citizens is only an issue when the country happens to be at odds with the US. Compared with other countries in the region, Iran is much more open and free. The elections might be bogus but there is ample discussion and participation when compared to "moderate" countries such as Egypt or Jordan (which sometimes is portrayed as a thriving democracy in the media!!!). Don't even let me get started on the kingdom of horrors (for the latest, check http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?id=ENGPRE012902010&lang=e&rss=recentnews) which is also often portrayed as a moderate country progressing towards freedom!!!???
On the other hand foreign troops do not pose any threat whatsoever to Afghan civilians...
This is just an excuse for going after wikileaks. If the troops weren't there or the US weren't using civilians there wouldn't be anything to worry about. One of the things that the leaked documents show is the large number of civilians being killed. I find it very hard to believe that these hysterical criticisms have anything to do with "preserving civilians".
They wouldn't make it illegal to not provide the passwords/keys because this is usually involves white collar crimes. In particular, this banker has got half the Brazilian parliament and 4/5 of the supreme court in his pay roll.
OTOH, I wouldn't be surprised if governments approved a "protect the children" type of law. Something like if there is a suspicion of child abuse the passwords/keys must be provided. Now the regular guy can be safely prosecuted and corrupt bankers don't have anything to worry...
Actually, if you you are working with very large data sets you might need to index using 64 bits. A friend of mine who knows very little programming was using matlab to compute all eigenvalues of a large operator. It was all working fine until he started to use his scripts on larger problems. At the time, a couple of years ago I had to recompile octave to use 64 bits as the default integer and the program just worked fine with the larger data-sets. The 64 bits integer was available as a configure option so I guess somebody (other than me and my friend) found this useful.
You are correct because monoculture with the same strain of crops can happen (and is common) but once GMOs are used this isn't ans issue any longer: monoculture it is!
Wait, you come up with a new technology that could cause a lot of harm and we have to prove it is worse? I'm sorry but that is at least extremely irresponsible. There are lots of things we don't understand very well in genetics and one thing we had figured out 20 years ago when GMO became common was that one gene = one protein (or one effect). Except that we now know that this isn't true. What does this mean? Once we insert a foreign gene (or gene sequence) on a cell, new compounds that have never existed in nature can possibly appear. What are its effects? Impossible to know.
Horizontal gene transfer does occur in nature and is actually common in some circumstances but this is not the same thing. I'm not a biologist but I think it is safe to say that horizontal gene transfer tends to occur between species that somehow live together and evolution has somehow bred out the really nasty possibilities.
Now, if you force new genes on species, at the very least, the probability of something going very wrong is much higher.
I guess that the worst problem with these technologies is monoculture. It is a matter of time until some new pest shows up destroys most crops.
Precision in the bible??? Are you insane? Much of the bible was written long after the death of Jesus. Flagrant inconsistencies are everywhere and if I met someone who sincerely believes the old testament and tries to follow its precepts I would certainly flee in terror. I really don't feel like being butchered/beaten/enslaved/tortured soon.
I personally did not though I did a few in physics lab. But I do know several people who have done a few. I can also see the astounding rate of development of all sorts of devices that can only be possible with a sound theoretical basis and the only one that I know of is quantum mechanics.
But that was not my point. My point is that we have mechanisms in society that deal with these things and try to sort out what is true, what is plausible and what is phony. It doesn't work perfectly but it is pretty good and if the claims are not too over the top I usually trust them. I couldn't possibly test and verify everything out there, not even 0.01% but there is a system that is fairly reliable and there is ample evidence of that - the scientific method.
Now if a random guy comes to me and says that he built a perpetual motion machine I would be *very* skeptical.
I don't need any faith to enter a plane. I know that pilots and airlines are certified. What is this certification? It is a process based on 100 years of flight experience and research that certifies that the pilot/airplane/airport/etc is acceptably reliable. Something could happen and a few times does happen but it is very unlikely that it will happen. People who don't accept that have some kind of phobia and need treatment. If I am a test pilot trying out a new plane design, I am not entering the plane based on faith. I know that the plane was designed and tested by competent engineers with degrees from recognized universities and schools. There is no faith in that, just observation and experience that shows that it is very unlikely something would go wrong.
Quantum mechanics has no relation to faith. We might not have a common sense tailored for quantum mechanics but we have 100 years of experiments and successful test cases that show that quantum mechanics is accurate.
If you really think like this you are a neurotic. I read somewhere a nice definition of a neurotic: someone who can't distinguish possibility from probability. On the other hand you might have a different definition of faith than the one I use. If that is the case I am almost certain that your definition is completely useless since any thing you do requires faith. Do you need faith for every step you take? There could be an invisible wall you could bump into. I don't see people feeling the air in front of them to verify if an invisible wall exists.
The point is there is a variety of independently verifiable evidences that airplanes are safe, that quantum mechanics works and that there are no invisible walls on the street and faith got nothing to do with it.anywhere near.
There is no proof that relativity or quantum mechanics is correct but most evidence suggests that they are correct. I wouldn't consider arrogant anyone who believes that relativity and quantum mechanics explain most phenomena in the universe.
Of course lack of evidence is not the same as evidence of lack but if a thorough search was done, lack of evidence certainly strongly suggests evindence of lack.
Agnosticism puts religion (or at least an abstract form of it) in the same level as science and that is a very foolish thing since religion asserts a truth and science is one method that can be used to arrive at the truth with a conserable degree of confidence.
On the other hand saying that the question is not answerable in any rational way simply shows that *you* (or me or anyone that I know of) can not do it. In the future, who knows. Proving negatives is not impossible, it is simply much more difficult.
Well, you might pay for the maintenance and infrastructure of this space. But I pay a lot of taxes too. And what do I get? I am are allowed to get run over without paying drivers on a few spots...
Anyway, you pay a few cents per gallon and I have to breath your pollution hear your noisy car at night and still have to ask your permition to use *public* infrastructure that I also pay (and payed) for. And above all, I was neither asked nor compensated for giving up most public spaces available so that you could try to kill me at every intersection.
I realize that you are probably a nice guy and probably a careful driver but you have to realize that society as a whole gave up a *lot* so that you (and others) could ride your car. The only thing I ask is that the burden should be on you. The burden of paying for all this infrastructure - which you partly or mostly? do - and, most important of all, the burden of responsibility towards the life and the rights of others less protetected than you. You are free to go anywhere you want with your car and so shoudl I be, using the means of transportation that I choose (foot, bike, public transportation or whatever).
So basically you are saying that only some people are entitled to vast swaths of public space? Bike paths are a solution to specific roads or situations. It is almost impossible to build bike lanes everywhere and such an effort, IMHO, is stupid. Most roads, streets, etc should be shared. The "winding road" argument is not valid since your reasoning could be applied to anything - pedestrians, fallen trees, whatever. What is the solution? Go slower. That solves all problems.
Does the driver enjoy this? Of course not but, hey, tough luck and just think of this as the price that drivers pay for having large chunks of public space devoted almost exclusively to them (in certain urban areas that is almost 40% of *all* land). And it is no coincidence that that in most places in the world defensive driving is not a "nice thing to do" but is the law (even if it is not called by that name).
Again, if you feel things are not safe, lower your speed and most safety problems will simply go away.
Iran wants to create a Wahabist world? Are you crazy? Who wants to create a wahabist world is the dear US ally Saudi Arabia. In a world were wahabists are strong the first victims would be the shi'a, which, as a coincidence, is the main religious group in Iran!!!
The ironic thing in the present situation of Iran is that western media is portraying the Mousavi guy as a reformer when he openly calls for returning to the teachings of Khomeini!?!. He should know about that since he was prime-minister (a position which no longer exists in Iran) in the 80's, coincidentally, when the worst attrocities of this awful regime were being committed. What were those attrocities? Murdering liberals, socialists, communists and seculars in general in their thousands all over the country, beginning in universities.
Tne funny thing is that even with such a despicable regime, Iran never invaded or bombed any other country to "the stone age" as many commentators say. On the other hand, Iran was invaded by Saddam Hussein who was doing US's bidding.
If you want to talk about crazy people hearing voices in their head, Iran appears to be the most "reasonable" place in the wretched Middle East. It is (with Israel) the only country in the region were election results even though rigged in several ways are not known in advance. Hell, it is one of the few places were there are elections!
If the US wants to "bring democracy to the middle east", it should be simple: start with US allies such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan or Egypt. At least they would certainly hear what the US has to say. But I have a feeling that isn't really the objective.
You are obviously correct because terrorists are so dumb that they are can not memorize their plans. I mean, the only way they can possibly remember out is to tatoo the plans on the chest and try to board the plane without a shirt.
The real smart ones, on the other hand, try to board the plane with a folder with the following large size capital letters: TERROR PLANS - NOT TO BE SHOWN TO TSA AGENTS.
If these guys went after people like these there would never be terrorist attacks anywhere. Avoiding terrorism is so easy...
Let me get this straight. You pick up a random guy and send him off for a few years to a prison on the other side of the world and you don't even know if the guy is guilty. Since he costs money, you think he should be put to work? This sounds like slavery to me - slave traders would probably use some sort of argument like that: let's go to Africa and pick up some people. They are probably guilty of something and certainly guilty of hating us. It is not fair to feed these people therefore we should make them work!!!
Slashdot Mirror
There is no justification. No one is arguing that Iran is a free and pluralistic society, simply that they have been invaded and meddled with before and their security concerns are legitimate even though the regime sucks horribly.
On the other hand shooting its own citizens is only an issue when the country happens to be at odds with the US. Compared with other countries in the region, Iran is much more open and free. The elections might be bogus but there is ample discussion and participation when compared to "moderate" countries such as Egypt or Jordan (which sometimes is portrayed as a thriving democracy in the media!!!). Don't even let me get started on the kingdom of horrors (for the latest, check http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?id=ENGPRE012902010&lang=e&rss=recentnews) which is also often portrayed as a moderate country progressing towards freedom!!!???
On the other hand foreign troops do not pose any threat whatsoever to Afghan civilians...
This is just an excuse for going after wikileaks. If the troops weren't there or the US weren't using civilians there wouldn't be anything to worry about. One of the things that the leaked documents show is the large number of civilians being killed. I find it very hard to believe that these hysterical criticisms have anything to do with "preserving civilians".
Even the creationists? They should be experts on that since the Brontosaurus (or whatever) died off a few tens of centuries ago...
They wouldn't make it illegal to not provide the passwords/keys because this is usually involves white collar crimes. In particular, this banker has got half the Brazilian parliament and 4/5 of the supreme court in his pay roll.
OTOH, I wouldn't be surprised if governments approved a "protect the children" type of law. Something like if there is a suspicion of child abuse the passwords/keys must be provided. Now the regular guy can be safely prosecuted and corrupt bankers don't have anything to worry...
Well, on the other hand, Darwin did try to get it right this time even though he failed again...
Actually, if you you are working with very large data sets you might need to index using 64 bits. A friend of mine who knows very little programming was using matlab to compute all eigenvalues of a large operator. It was all working fine until he started to use his scripts on larger problems. At the time, a couple of years ago I had to recompile octave to use 64 bits as the default integer and the program just worked fine with the larger data-sets. The 64 bits integer was available as a configure option so I guess somebody (other than me and my friend) found this useful.
Have you any idea how uncomfortable it is wearing a wristwatch like device when you take the problem into your own hands?
You are correct because monoculture with the same strain of crops can happen (and is common) but once GMOs are used this isn't ans issue any longer: monoculture it is!
Wait, you come up with a new technology that could cause a lot of harm and we have to prove it is worse? I'm sorry but that is at least extremely irresponsible. There are lots of things we don't understand very well in genetics and one thing we had figured out 20 years ago when GMO became common was that one gene = one protein (or one effect). Except that we now know that this isn't true. What does this mean? Once we insert a foreign gene (or gene sequence) on a cell, new compounds that have never existed in nature can possibly appear. What are its effects? Impossible to know.
Horizontal gene transfer does occur in nature and is actually common in some circumstances but this is not the same thing. I'm not a biologist but I think it is safe to say that horizontal gene transfer tends to occur between species that somehow live together and evolution has somehow bred out the really nasty possibilities.
Now, if you force new genes on species, at the very least, the probability of something going very wrong is much higher.
I guess that the worst problem with these technologies is monoculture. It is a matter of time until some new pest shows up destroys most crops.
In Portuguese, Brazil used to be spelled with a 'z'. Portuguese changed its spelling not English.
Precision in the bible??? Are you insane? Much of the bible was written long after the death of Jesus. Flagrant inconsistencies are everywhere and if I met someone who sincerely believes the old testament and tries to follow its precepts I would certainly flee in terror. I really don't feel like being butchered/beaten/enslaved/tortured soon.
I personally did not though I did a few in physics lab. But I do know several people who have done a few. I can also see the astounding rate of development of all sorts of devices that can only be possible with a sound theoretical basis and the only one that I know of is quantum mechanics.
But that was not my point. My point is that we have mechanisms in society that deal with these things and try to sort out what is true, what is plausible and what is phony. It doesn't work perfectly but it is pretty good and if the claims are not too over the top I usually trust them. I couldn't possibly test and verify everything out there, not even 0.01% but there is a system that is fairly reliable and there is ample evidence of that - the scientific method.
Now if a random guy comes to me and says that he built a perpetual motion machine I would be *very* skeptical.
I don't need any faith to enter a plane. I know that pilots and airlines are certified. What is this certification? It is a process based on 100 years of flight experience and research that certifies that the pilot/airplane/airport/etc is acceptably reliable. Something could happen and a few times does happen but it is very unlikely that it will happen. People who don't accept that have some kind of phobia and need treatment. If I am a test pilot trying out a new plane design, I am not entering the plane based on faith. I know that the plane was designed and tested by competent engineers with degrees from recognized universities and schools. There is no faith in that, just observation and experience that shows that it is very unlikely something would go wrong.
Quantum mechanics has no relation to faith. We might not have a common sense tailored for quantum mechanics but we have 100 years of experiments and successful test cases that show that quantum mechanics is accurate.
If you really think like this you are a neurotic. I read somewhere a nice definition of a neurotic: someone who can't distinguish possibility from probability. On the other hand you might have a different definition of faith than the one I use. If that is the case I am almost certain that your definition is completely useless since any thing you do requires faith. Do you need faith for every step you take? There could be an invisible wall you could bump into. I don't see people feeling the air in front of them to verify if an invisible wall exists.
The point is there is a variety of independently verifiable evidences that airplanes are safe, that quantum mechanics works and that there are no invisible walls on the street and faith got nothing to do with it.anywhere near.
You don't have to go that far. Almost by definition any religious ceremony is blasfemous to all other religions.
There is no proof that relativity or quantum mechanics is correct but most evidence suggests that they are correct. I wouldn't consider arrogant anyone who believes that relativity and quantum mechanics explain most phenomena in the universe.
Of course lack of evidence is not the same as evidence of lack but if a thorough search was done, lack of evidence certainly strongly suggests evindence of lack.
Agnosticism puts religion (or at least an abstract form of it) in the same level as science and that is a very foolish thing since religion asserts a truth and science is one method that can be used to arrive at the truth with a conserable degree of confidence.
On the other hand saying that the question is not answerable in any rational way simply shows that *you* (or me or anyone that I know of) can not do it. In the future, who knows. Proving negatives is not impossible, it is simply much more difficult.
Or they might get mutant super-powers. The we would be in trouble.
Well, you might pay for the maintenance and infrastructure of this space. But I pay a lot of taxes too. And what do I get? I am are allowed to get run over without paying drivers on a few spots...
Anyway, you pay a few cents per gallon and I have to breath your pollution hear your noisy car at night and still have to ask your permition to use *public* infrastructure that I also pay (and payed) for. And above all, I was neither asked nor compensated for giving up most public spaces available so that you could try to kill me at every intersection.
I realize that you are probably a nice guy and probably a careful driver but you have to realize that society as a whole gave up a *lot* so that you (and others) could ride your car. The only thing I ask is that the burden should be on you. The burden of paying for all this infrastructure - which you partly or mostly? do - and, most important of all, the burden of responsibility towards the life and the rights of others less protetected than you. You are free to go anywhere you want with your car and so shoudl I be, using the means of transportation that I choose (foot, bike, public transportation or whatever).
So basically you are saying that only some people are entitled to vast swaths of public space? Bike paths are a solution to specific roads or situations. It is almost impossible to build bike lanes everywhere and such an effort, IMHO, is stupid. Most roads, streets, etc should be shared. The "winding road" argument is not valid since your reasoning could be applied to anything - pedestrians, fallen trees, whatever. What is the solution? Go slower. That solves all problems.
Does the driver enjoy this? Of course not but, hey, tough luck and just think of this as the price that drivers pay for having large chunks of public space devoted almost exclusively to them (in certain urban areas that is almost 40% of *all* land). And it is no coincidence that that in most places in the world defensive driving is not a "nice thing to do" but is the law (even if it is not called by that name).
Again, if you feel things are not safe, lower your speed and most safety problems will simply go away.
With his kind of life, cutting years off his life is an advantage!!!
Iran wants to create a Wahabist world? Are you crazy? Who wants to create a wahabist world is the dear US ally Saudi Arabia. In a world were wahabists are strong the first victims would be the shi'a, which, as a coincidence, is the main religious group in Iran!!!
The ironic thing in the present situation of Iran is that western media is portraying the Mousavi guy as a reformer when he openly calls for returning to the teachings of Khomeini!?!. He should know about that since he was prime-minister (a position which no longer exists in Iran) in the 80's, coincidentally, when the worst attrocities of this awful regime were being committed. What were those attrocities? Murdering liberals, socialists, communists and seculars in general in their thousands all over the country, beginning in universities.
Tne funny thing is that even with such a despicable regime, Iran never invaded or bombed any other country to "the stone age" as many commentators say. On the other hand, Iran was invaded by Saddam Hussein who was doing US's bidding.
If you want to talk about crazy people hearing voices in their head, Iran appears to be the most "reasonable" place in the wretched Middle East. It is (with Israel) the only country in the region were election results even though rigged in several ways are not known in advance. Hell, it is one of the few places were there are elections!
If the US wants to "bring democracy to the middle east", it should be simple: start with US allies such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan or Egypt. At least they would certainly hear what the US has to say. But I have a feeling that isn't really the objective.
You are obviously correct because terrorists are so dumb that they are can not memorize their plans. I mean, the only way they can possibly remember out is to tatoo the plans on the chest and try to board the plane without a shirt.
The real smart ones, on the other hand, try to board the plane with a folder with the following large size capital letters: TERROR PLANS - NOT TO BE SHOWN TO TSA AGENTS.
If these guys went after people like these there would never be terrorist attacks anywhere. Avoiding terrorism is so easy...
Actually a heroic developer has already done that:
http://live.gnome.org/Gnote/
Warning people that you will go on a killing spree is not exactly silent...
Let me get this straight. You pick up a random guy and send him off for a few years to a prison on the other side of the world and you don't even know if the guy is guilty. Since he costs money, you think he should be put to work? This sounds like slavery to me - slave traders would probably use some sort of argument like that: let's go to Africa and pick up some people. They are probably guilty of something and certainly guilty of hating us. It is not fair to feed these people therefore we should make them work!!!
No laws about that. Who could envisage such cruelty?