Yeah, I remember seeing "tongue maps," and even as a young child I thought the concept was bogus. It was contradicted by the very simple experimental evidence that anything I ate tasted the same no matter where it was on my tongue!
Chile improving relations with Argentina? Not likely, at least not during the current generation. I used to live in Argentina, and they hate Chile there, based on allegations (I have no idea if this is true or not, but "everybody knows" they did it down there) that Chile does/used to steal land from Argentina by establishing towns on Argentina's side of the border and then claiming the area for Chile since it was full of Chilean citizens.
That may be true, or it may be exactly as true as their never-ending cultural obsession with the Falkland islands having been stolen from them by England, (which is to say, a complete and utter fabrication; the islands were never Argentina's in any real sense anyway,) but as long as most people believe it, it'll take a miracle to get any changes.
That was a horrible movie. (And yes, I'm aware it's based on a book. I never read the book, so I can't comment on it one way or another.) If I had known beforehand that the plot was going to be about a bunch of smart people (whose defining characteristic is "they are the intelligent ones") being evil and trying to take over the world, I'd have never gone to see it.
No, the problem really is the existence of DRM. Its only purpose is to take control of a device that you own away from you and put it in the hands of someone else, against your will and against your interests.
In any other context, that's known as hacking, and it's illegal. Why should it be any different for this specific context? (And before anyone embarrasses themselves by claiming that it's not "against your will" because you bought the product of your own free will, even though it contains DRM, please look up the term "Leonine Contract" and understand its implications.)
It may not suffer from flat batteries, but it does suffer from several other major design limitations:
* It doesn't have a built-in database of addresses (you have to already know where you're going to find out how to get there)
* It doesn't have a routing algorithm (even if you know where you are and where you're going, it's up to you to figure out how to get from point A to point B)
* It tends to show roads and political boundaries, but not things you'd actually be interested in such as final destinations. (If I'm trying to get to a hotel, it's a lot easier to remember the name of the hotel than its address.)
* Once it's printed, it's set in stone (as it were). It can't receive updates, either regarding new roads and final destinations or current traffic conditions.
* It can't read itself to you. This is particularly significant when you don't have a passenger along.
In light of all this, there's really no good reason not to use a GPS these days.
What is so important that you HAVE TO HAVE a smartphone for being out and about.
Just off the top of my head, Google Maps. That little app in and of itself was worth the purchase price of the phone and more a while back when I found myself lost in an unfamiliar city I was visiting and the cheapo GPS the rental car company gave me broke down, while I was on the freeway! It enabled me to get to my destination and then back to my hotel safely and on time.
There's more truth to this than is immediately apparent.
Look back on history, and you see that before the Civil War, the notion of the employer-employee relationship as we know it today barely existed. Large companies didn't hardly exist, because they couldn't; people would work enough to save up enough money to strike out on their own, or go into the family business.
Or, if you lived in the South, you could have slaves. The interesting thing about slavery that no one really mentions today is that it's not "free labor"; slaves were an investment in property that have to be maintained, much like a horse (or a large and complex machine today). You have to feed a slave, provide housing, see to his basic needs, and all that costs a certain amount of money. But it was profitable enough that you got large plantations with large slave-labor forces, whereas in the North, free people who were able to save up money and strike out on their own usually did, and so large businesses didn't have much of a chance to develop.
Everything changed with the 14th Amendment, and ever since then, certain types of employers (and it's very instructive to see how many of them have Southern roots!) have been working to gradually restore status quo ante. Look at how many workers today are paid just barely enough to pay for food, housing and basic needs--exactly what an "employer" of yesteryear would have needed to pay for the upkeep of a slave--while still nominally enjoying a state of freedom, and you'll see how far we've fallen...
Yeah, that's a great closer. The argument that anything goes because of September 11th should, frankly, disqualify Rep. Rogers from holding office. Doing "everything possible" would mean abandoning the Constitution that Rogers is supposed to be upholding. We're a nation built on the principle that we don't abridge basic freedoms to "do everything possible" to stop one crime.
You are clearly unaware of the 911th Amendment: Nothing in this document shall be interpreted as abridging or interfering with the Government's power to keep its citizens safe from the threat of terrorism.
Not really. Bear in mind that we're dealing with people who think things were so much simpler back in the good old days when freedom of the press was only meaningful at all to those few people who could afford one. So it wouldn't be at all difficult to define "engaged in journalism" as doing journalist-style work in the employ of a reputable (read: rich campaign donor) publisher. And then we're back to square 1.
Alternatively, if the government really wants to make an explicit safe harbor to protect journalist sources, it seems that a better approach would be to not define "journalists," but just make it clear that it protects anyone "engaged in journalism," whether professional or not.
I really don't see how this makes any difference; it just moves the problem around a little. Now the question is, how do you define "engaged in journalism"? And we're back to square 1.
Seems to me, if the publishers refused to provide the list, Pandora could have used their behavior as evidence of bad faith in any court proceedings:
"They were playing our music illegally."
"Not at all. We had a license to play their music. They told us that the licenses for certain songs was no longer valid. We asked repeatedly for a list of which songs, and got no response each time. And so we removed all of the songs that they told us were no longer valid from our catalogue--which was nothing. We were fully in compliance with all the information we had been given by the publishers throughout the process."
Here's the fun thing that most people aren't talking about in Crimea: Russia is (actually, for once) not doing anything wrong.
Crimea's inclusion in Ukraine was an accident of history, a Soviet-age screwup that's really only been at all relevant since the fall of the USSR split Ukraine off into its own distinct country. But the vast majority of the people in Crimea are ethnically, linguistically, and culturally Russian, not Ukranian, and they voted to break away from Ukraine and rejoin Russia.
Knowing this, it's difficult to find fault in Russia's decision to step in and provide protection for the Russian people living in Crimea during the recent turmoil. And the US's decision to rattle sabers over it is a bit baffling; as near as I can tell, we don't have a dog in this fight. Why are we acting like we do?
Re: Re: history of where our scientific understanding of the heliocentric model
That's the entire point! The trial of Galileo had nothing whatsoever to do with "religious intolerance of science;" it was about not tolerating an attempt to mix bad science with bad theology. The fact that this is "indeed the most famous case of religious intolerance in the history of science" really ought to tell you something.
Which just proves how he is very much one of the towering figures of science. What does? The circular logic is incredibly strong here. "Galileo was persecuted for being a great scientist, which just proves how great of a scientist he was." If he made so many great contributions, what are they?
From the article series that you obviously still have not read:
Aside: The Crucial Role of Galileo.
There was none. Every discovery made by Galileo was made by someone else at pretty much the same time. Marius discovered the moons of Jupiter one day later. Scheiner made a detailed study of the sunspots earlier than Galileo. The phases of Venus were noted by Lembo and others. And so on. Even his more valuable work in mechanics duplicated the work of De Soto, Stevins, and others. Matters would have proceeded differently -- certainly with less fuss and feathers -- and some conclusions may have taken longer, or perhaps shorter times to achieve. The thing is, science does not depend upon any single individual. No one is "the father of" any particular theory or practice. As Newton observed, he stood upon the shoulders of giants -- a sentiment expressed by Bernard of Chartres back in the Early Middle Ages! Regarding heliocentrism, Galileo's biggest accomplishment was to get some folks so riled up that the conversation was inhibited for a short time in some quarters.
If that's incorrect, prove it, with facts, not wild assertions and crazy rantings about evil religious persecutions.
Re: Re: Galileo ... actually made no real contributions to science
So some Christian Iíve never heard of continues the good old Christian tradition of trying to do a hatchet job on Galileo, yet again.
Not at all. You really ought to read the articles; you're just making yourself look more ignorant with each post.
The series isn't even about Galileo, Christianity, or apologetics; it's about a history of where our scientific understanding of the heliocentric model of the solar system comes from. And Galileo really played very little part in that, (because the heliocentric model he was pushing was incorrect,) but since the Galileo mythos has become such a big thing in the modern consciousness when thinking about this subject, the author found it necessary to set the record straight as a part of the overall process. Otherwise he'd have gotten a bazillion stupid comments saying "but what about Galileo? He knew the Earth went around the sun!"