Okay, maybe this is more in the "confuse future archaeologists" category....
They'll just put it down to religion. When an Archaeologist doesn't know what something's for, the answer's always relgion.
Common inexpensive server machines are very powerful today. Many cores, many GB of RAM. It becomes a management and flexibility nightmare to host all the desired servers on a single operating system.
For example, group A needs a web app hosted in a Tomcat environment; B needs a a JBoss based app; C and D need two different Django apps; E and F need Rails apps.. All of those apps together still only need 10% of the resources of the server. So, you can also host 20 other services on it. Good luck managing the dependencies across all the apps. Try upgrading libraries used by multiple servers. You're stuck with the lowest common denominator. Now add in the fact that group J and K want an app supported in Windows Server 2003, and L and M want Windows Server 2012.
In a VM environment, you can isolate each server into its own OS, with its own minimal set of needed libraries, and you need only manage and test how it works with the single hosted app. You can also bolt on more resources by throwing another server in the cluster and distributing the load.
TL;DR: Servers today are really powerful. You can be very resource inefficient to gain a ton of operational efficiency.
Even most people who treat money as their number one priority day to day would doubtless change if they recognized a threat to their physical existance. Einstein didn't particularly make a big deal out of money. That's actually on the record, as there are accounts of just how little he asked for a salary when he hired on at Princton. But, his day to day priorities definitely included support for doing physics, and hot babes. I'm pretty sure from the things he said about where he feared German antisemitism was leading, that he was willing to put both those things aside for the duration of getting out of Germany.
Mechanical, compulsory is easy licensing to deal with. Not really much restrictions on the distribution format. Sync licensing on the other hand gives the artist the right to dictate which methods of distribution are allowed. So if an artist says, "NO STREAMING" there will be no streaming.
There. TL;DR;'d that for ya.
In the 1970's there was a book called "Four Arguments for the Abolition of Television", or something like that. One of the arguments was the limited image quality of the 512 line scan made even very poorly faked emotions very hard to distinguish from the real thing, and so children who got their learning examples of human expressions from TV would have a hard time telling who was really feeling emotions or just faking them. The author also claimed that emotions such as Rage, Fear, and Strong Suffering would come through better than subtler emotions such as Boredom, Fondness or Compassion, so TV scripts would come to emphasize those emotions which at least somewhat worked and ignore the rest. Perhaps there's something to these ideas.
While you are at it, what happens if they test specifially with medical personnel who have been told they need to spot people faking pain to get their opiate fix,and avoid at all costs encouraging their addiction?
There's a good precedent for your argument that this is a question of instinctual skill vrs trained skill, but it doesn't take anything like a billion examples to train a person in the example I'm considering. A very common way to teach health care personnel to recognize Fetal Alchohol Syndrome is to give them an album with several hundred photos of people in various life stages, all suffering from FAS. This method has worked since the time when the photos were black and white, and in fact, using color shots or video footage doesn't seem to have any impact on success or the number of examples needed. Once someone is trained that way, the success percentage is in the very high 90s, and stays that way, at least for a typical crreer. Similar methods are used for other diseases, for example most people have learned to spot Down's syndrome from just a few examples, but where the syndrome produces only some of the usual appearance effects, spotting the 'borderline cases' with high accuracy can be taught this same way, usually taking about 15 minutes.
There's a lot of evidence that the typical really flat out evil criminal, the sort who shoots a convenience store clerk just because they catch them studying for school and so trying to move up in the world, can't really project consequences enough to plan more than a few weeks into the future. They don't see any connection with what they do now and what will happen even a few months down the road. Yes, we could try and implement the death penalty more quickly, but how could we possibly make it so the time from the crime being comitted to the time they were arrested, given a fair trial, and executed, was measurable in weeks or even days?
How could we have any justice at all in such a headlong plummet? That's what it would take for deterrence to work, massively probable consequences that would all come back on the person within weeks of them committing the crime, just so a small percentage of people considering the same crime would have it fresh in their very limited memories. And since most of these people also cannot empathize with anybody not very much like themselves, we would have to flood the news with reports of people they found similar enough to make examples they could learn from. That's what deterrence would require, for most of those very worst crimes we are the most appalled by. We might manage punishment. We might manage justice. We might even manage reform, at least sometimes. The one thing that we will never do in such cases is to deter by example.
By that standard, if I kick a young healthy person in the shin,, I should get these hypothetical drugs as part of my punishment for a minor assault. After all, it's very unlikely I've shortened my hypothetical victim's life. Of course I also haven't likely left him wishing he could find the nerve to terminate his intollerably bruised shinned existence, fearing all human intimacy due to the risk of getting the other shin kicked, or otherwise impared to where the number of years he has left matters one way or the other.
We aren't discussing murder victims once someone says the victims have a lot of years left. This thread of the topic has focused on people who survived and are physically not so damaged they won't live long, and yet some people are debating over whether a subjective 1,000 year sentence is a good idea for such crimes. Advocating thousand year sentences for assaults that leave the victim mostly physically unimpaired - sounds like a great new definition of subhuman savagry to me.
Not nearly all Protestants are biblical literalists. Most of the mainstream believe that scripture is sufficient without needing a person to interpret it for the common man. That becomes more a matter of the priest or minister being just a person who leads rituals and not a necessary intermediary between the common man and God. But sufficent is not at all the same thing as inerrant.
I agreee that the Republican National Comittee are control freaks, and to a lesser extent, so's the Roman Catholic Church (I llke this Pope better than Bennie so far though). Most organized religions devolve to be about control, whatever the founders and reformers intended. Galileo got more flack for ignoring the Pope's order not to publish for the common man in Itallian until he had presented his arguments to the learned in Latin and let the church have prior approval, than anything else. Secular judges still put people away for talking about a case outside court, and not usually just house arrest either, so I'm not sure why people think what the RCC did there was especially wrong, but are OK with their legal system today. .
If you've seen how poorly the average chimp is hung, you wouldn't be so surprised that happens.
ALL religions have a philosophical basis, which was what initially formed them. As they pass from generation to generation, they tend to attract more beleivers who don't know the difference between what may have originally been metaphors of that philosophy and more literal claims. Various reformations and fluctuations occur. Right now, a couple of the organized Satanic movements have attracted a lot of people who didn't just find an emotional objection to the sort of Christianity they were raised on, but saw philosophical issues. That sort of thing varies a lot - people might leave the Dominionists or Quiverfull movement for a more rational Christian church such as the Methodists (and no, I'm not a Methodist just because I said something nice about them - I could argue that the Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox or even Coptic branches are a lot more sollidly based on a resonable philosophical tradition than most of the American Fundamentalists branches), or take up Zen or other Eastern traditions, just as easily as Satanism.
Saying Satanism isnt really a religion is essentially comparing some specific organized forms that are making philosophical arguments at the current time*, and leaving out the ones that aren't**, then cherry picking other religions for the opposite approach. It would be just as fair to say "Christianity isn't really a religion, it's more of an ultra-liberal philosophy", based solely on the Unitarian or Episcopal churches.
*For example, offering to put up a Baphomet monument to match the Ten Commandments.
** Unless you count "We wanna have an effing orgy and get wasted" as a philosophy. It's amazing how many people need some supernatural power's permission to get drunk and screw.
If anything, it makes sense to count how long a species has been evolving in terms of generations, not years. Most conifers have a longer time between generations than humans, so they have fewer evolutionary intervals than humans. I don't even know how you could get an average of how long a generation is for the human evolutionary history, back to tree shrews or even to the first chordates - how could we calculate the total number of evolutionary steps our ancestors made and compare this to a pine tree's ancestry?
They mention looking at the causes "terrorism, pilot error, sudden depressurization and engine failure" to estimate likely search locations. Of course, that's true.. But, if the cause is a rogue pilot who doesn't want to be found (as evidenced by the manual disabling of communications) things get tough really quick.
I guess at that point you're working with the fuel radius and removing areas covered by some form of tracking that would have definitely detected them.
I suspect one of the points you are missing is that Germany certainly did call Einstein a traitor, and certainly had laid the groundwork for executing him specifically for treason and not just as part of the final solution if they had captured him after a successful conclusion to their war.. Another one is that the United States has a very limited definition of treason, which is actually spelled out in the constitution.
Article 3 - The Judicial Branch
Section 3 - Treason
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
By that definition, neither Einstein nor Snowden would even possibly count as a traitor. The arguement you're making comes off as everyone should use some other definition of traitor that is broader than in the US Constitution, but somehow doesn't allow the sort of abuses a nation such as Nazi Germany would commit with such a legal basis, so that Snowden might count while Einstein, Fermi, et. al. couldn't possibly.
The point is, we have two entities who appear to fall in the same domain (non-treasonous things). Someone created an analogy that correctly asserts these two entities do in fact belong in the same domain. Then someone else declared, by apparent fiat, that the analogy was irrelevant. Not flawed, not violating some principle of logic, but simply irrelevant. Every analogy is imperfect. All are flawed to some extent, and matter only because they can still be useful to get to a correct conclusion despite the flaws. This analogy may have more flaws than a great many, (In fact, I think analogies of this sort seldom lead to the correct conclusion, and generally shed more heat than light on their subjects) but still, in this case, it has somehow led to the correct conclusion, therefore it simply cannot be irrelevant. Declaring it irrelevant is thus not a counterargument, but an attempt to suppress speech. You probably don't want to endorse the AC doing that, instead of rationally addressing the flaws specifially and not just dismissing the whole.
FORTRAN is not a flower but a weed -- it is hardy, occasionally blooms, and grows in every computer. -- A.J. Perlis
