one of my friends would let his little girl play Mortal Kombat, but he knows full well about the content. I disagree with him on that, but it's his kid, his home and his responsibility. And to be fair, his child is perfectly well adjusted, so who am I to say what's bad for one kid and not the other? I think I saw that girl the other day. She was standing over a little boy on a playground. Then a disembodied voice yelled out "FINISH HIM!" and she ripped the kid's spine out through his chest. After that she went and picked some daisies and rode away on a beach cruiser.
Informative? I'm pretty sure that it's common knowledge that the majority of the world, excluding the US, Canada, and a large portion of Africa use that word. Are you going to next tell us that sausages are bangers and chips are similar to French fries. What exactly is the point of your post?
Exactly, just like the ridiculous zero-tolerance weapons policy at some schools. The elementary school I went to had a kid pick up one of those little plastic cocktail swords on the playground (who knows why it was there) during recess. The teacher saw him with it and he was suspended. The parents fought it with the school board and lost. Does that making any sense whatsoever?
I find it kind of refreshing to see that there are very different social models possible and both work.
I wonder who's going to win when they start competing for resources. That's why we're the only homos still around. Making war, tribalism, murder, it's all in our nature, unfortunately.
Fuck off, it was a joke. I knew what he meant. We actually respond to each quite often on here and get along fine. Btw, I never said anything disparaging about OU or OSU. I also didn't go to either school, I went to UA. Maybe you assumed that I'm the OSU idiot who started this thread. I've known several people who've gone to OU, it's just like any other school. Some graduates are intelligent and educated, some aren't.
The paperwork that you sign when you enlist CLEARLY STATES the stop-loss policy. It's not hidden in fine print, it's right there. If I remember correctly it even stands out because of bullet points. I even had my recruiter mention it to me. People are serving time for which they DID volunteer. Why don't you look up the enlistment documents and take a read. The people that bitch about stop loss are cowards.
I am not a "fortunate son" like you accuse the gp to be. I served, I volunteered, enlisted. My father never finished high school, my mother went to college. But I was never poor as a child and I was educated. I scored 740V, 800M on my SAT, if I'd taken it a second time like those obsessive students or actually prepared for it I probably would have got a 1600. I had all A's in high school. I would have been valedictorian out of over 700 graduating students but I took some unweighted electives. I had a full ride scholarship to Alfred University, a very good school. I volunteered, I enlisted. I current attend a university and hold a 4.0 GPA. You may say that I'm the exception. I am not. The majority of men and women I served with in the Marine Corps were the most dedicated and clever people I have ever met. Many of them were not "poor." I knew a couple whose parents were millionaires. That misconception is the "ignorance." I see it said all the time. People join the military because they are poor or because they are uneducated. That does happen, not "often times", andit should not be applied to the entire military, especially the officers. If you want to bitch about the war why don't you enlist, or join an anti-war activist group, or do something positive other than lambast the troops who protect your freedoms and the politicians. You could at least have the guts to not post as an anonymous coward.
The stuff mentioned above about my academic career is not bragging, it's to illustrate a point.
There are some people that already do this. Like John McCain. Hey, wait a second, he supports the war. Actually, I believe that you'll find that the majority of politicians that have relatives in Iraq support the fight as well. McCain wants to be president and he'll feet these inane requirements, plus he was a POW for several years himself. I don't know why I'm even replying to this thread. It's simply ignorant.
Your comment might have been insightful, except for one thing. "the only reason" That shows blatant ignorance. This world is far more complex that. There is no "only reason" for anything. One of the reasons that they want to kill us is because of the political/military interference. Another reason is their hatred of our religion. There is also a centuries old grudge against the West based on the Crusades. That will not go away, EVER. Some few people will always be able to find a "motive" to do evil things. I'm sure if you actually think about it you will be able to come up with more reasons. But you chose to spout your liberal rhetoric that is just as bad and as broad a generalization as the neo-con rhetoric that others replied with. Again, I am only referring to the extremists, the terrorists.
You fogot this alumnus, Kamil Idris, current Director General of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). You think he tipped off the RIAA?
I'm not suggesting colonies on other worlds in the immediate future, but the capability to detect and stop collisions with large objects is definitely within our grasp. We do have to move off this rock sometime. Maybe someday we'll find, or even make, a world that is just as pleasant to live on as Earth.
I based that comment on the wiki article which cited two different sources that stated 200km as the commonly accepted beginning of LEO. The definition in the referenced NASA document is: Low Earth orbit (LEO) - The region of space below the altitude of 2000 km. So, according to that NASA document. LEO can also be referenced as a place and not just a velocity. Let me explain it this way. If LEO is a velocity, then how is it different from just an orbit? Low-Earth must mean just that, the orbit occurs close to the Earth. Yeah, you can orbit at 100km, hell, you can orbit at 2km if you are travelling fast enough. People usually call that flight though.
Life as we know it would end. Maybe the human race would survive, or some form of it. But why even go through that? The devestation that would result from a large impact is incredible, far surpassing the amount of money that we spend on the space program. Nice, snarky comment. But you know that isn't the point of what I'm saying.
If the money spended on the Iraq war had been spended on Mars and moonbases they wouldn't be a pipedream. It appears that the money would have been better spent on the education system.
Slashdot Mirror
Informative? I'm pretty sure that it's common knowledge that the majority of the world, excluding the US, Canada, and a large portion of Africa use that word. Are you going to next tell us that sausages are bangers and chips are similar to French fries. What exactly is the point of your post?
Exactly, just like the ridiculous zero-tolerance weapons policy at some schools. The elementary school I went to had a kid pick up one of those little plastic cocktail swords on the playground (who knows why it was there) during recess. The teacher saw him with it and he was suspended. The parents fought it with the school board and lost. Does that making any sense whatsoever?
I wonder who's going to win when they start competing for resources. That's why we're the only homos still around. Making war, tribalism, murder, it's all in our nature, unfortunately.
Better article from NatGeo. Also has a video. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/07 0222-chimps-spears.html
Fuck off, it was a joke. I knew what he meant. We actually respond to each quite often on here and get along fine. Btw, I never said anything disparaging about OU or OSU. I also didn't go to either school, I went to UA. Maybe you assumed that I'm the OSU idiot who started this thread. I've known several people who've gone to OU, it's just like any other school. Some graduates are intelligent and educated, some aren't.
The paperwork that you sign when you enlist CLEARLY STATES the stop-loss policy. It's not hidden in fine print, it's right there. If I remember correctly it even stands out because of bullet points. I even had my recruiter mention it to me. People are serving time for which they DID volunteer. Why don't you look up the enlistment documents and take a read. The people that bitch about stop loss are cowards.
I am not a "fortunate son" like you accuse the gp to be. I served, I volunteered, enlisted. My father never finished high school, my mother went to college. But I was never poor as a child and I was educated. I scored 740V, 800M on my SAT, if I'd taken it a second time like those obsessive students or actually prepared for it I probably would have got a 1600. I had all A's in high school. I would have been valedictorian out of over 700 graduating students but I took some unweighted electives. I had a full ride scholarship to Alfred University, a very good school. I volunteered, I enlisted. I current attend a university and hold a 4.0 GPA. You may say that I'm the exception. I am not. The majority of men and women I served with in the Marine Corps were the most dedicated and clever people I have ever met. Many of them were not "poor." I knew a couple whose parents were millionaires. That misconception is the "ignorance." I see it said all the time. People join the military because they are poor or because they are uneducated. That does happen, not "often times", andit should not be applied to the entire military, especially the officers. If you want to bitch about the war why don't you enlist, or join an anti-war activist group, or do something positive other than lambast the troops who protect your freedoms and the politicians. You could at least have the guts to not post as an anonymous coward.
The stuff mentioned above about my academic career is not bragging, it's to illustrate a point.
There are some people that already do this. Like John McCain. Hey, wait a second, he supports the war. Actually, I believe that you'll find that the majority of politicians that have relatives in Iraq support the fight as well. McCain wants to be president and he'll feet these inane requirements, plus he was a POW for several years himself. I don't know why I'm even replying to this thread. It's simply ignorant.
Your comment might have been insightful, except for one thing. "the only reason" That shows blatant ignorance. This world is far more complex that. There is no "only reason" for anything. One of the reasons that they want to kill us is because of the political/military interference. Another reason is their hatred of our religion. There is also a centuries old grudge against the West based on the Crusades. That will not go away, EVER. Some few people will always be able to find a "motive" to do evil things. I'm sure if you actually think about it you will be able to come up with more reasons. But you chose to spout your liberal rhetoric that is just as bad and as broad a generalization as the neo-con rhetoric that others replied with. Again, I am only referring to the extremists, the terrorists.
Obviously, you've never seen Face Off. If they stop and check they can tell their voices are different. Amateur.
You know what else is funny? "yahoo" is one of the top search queries on google, and vice versa.
Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
Sylar, is that you?
You fogot this alumnus, Kamil Idris, current Director General of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). You think he tipped off the RIAA?
But how many is that in libraries of congress?
I'm not suggesting colonies on other worlds in the immediate future, but the capability to detect and stop collisions with large objects is definitely within our grasp. We do have to move off this rock sometime. Maybe someday we'll find, or even make, a world that is just as pleasant to live on as Earth.
His errors were not spelling alone. And, Jesus, everyone! It was a fucking joke. Maybe a poor attempt at one, but come on.
I based that comment on the wiki article which cited two different sources that stated 200km as the commonly accepted beginning of LEO. The definition in the referenced NASA document is: Low Earth orbit (LEO) - The region of space below the altitude of 2000 km. So, according to that NASA document. LEO can also be referenced as a place and not just a velocity. Let me explain it this way. If LEO is a velocity, then how is it different from just an orbit? Low-Earth must mean just that, the orbit occurs close to the Earth. Yeah, you can orbit at 100km, hell, you can orbit at 2km if you are travelling fast enough. People usually call that flight though.
Life as we know it would end. Maybe the human race would survive, or some form of it. But why even go through that? The devestation that would result from a large impact is incredible, far surpassing the amount of money that we spend on the space program. Nice, snarky comment. But you know that isn't the point of what I'm saying.
Without an education nearly everything is a pipedream.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/science/ index.html
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/station/science/experi ments/index.html