What's pathetic is putting up zero-content posts that attack others for no reason. I can help you find some resources to work on improving your self esteem if you would like.
OK, so it's hidden to the visible spectrum, but it's blasting fucking laser beamns like crazy to figure out it's environment so to a $5 IR receiver (or whatever part of the spectrum they use) the thing would look like a fucking christmas tree decorated with strobe lights.
The welfare queen myth is one of my favorite conservative ghost stories too! I love how it simultaneously suggests that poor people are poor because they want to be poor, hints that the key to solving their problem is to shove them deeper in to poverty, and leaves just a slight aftertaste of racism in your mouth.
Really though, bringing up disproven conservative talking points from the 70's isn't a good way to be taken seriously. No one with a brain in their head believes that welfare fraud makes any meaningful impact on the nations economy any more because it never did. The entire concept was just an attempt to scapegoat poor people for economic problems thought up in a conservative think tank in the 60's as a way to focus economic anger downward toward the underclass, instead of upward towards the wealthy, the direction in which such anger had traditionally been focused since the dawn of time.
You mean "Kool-aid"? All I hear from progressives is "more government, no spending cuts, more regulation, bigger taxes", etc. No delusions at all.
I thought you'd be more sensitive to trademark infringement in a copyright infringement thread.
Seriously though, explain to me why any of those are bad things. More government is what pulled the US out of the great depression, and this is the worst economic slump since then. No spending cuts isn't a bad thing, espicially when you consider the fact that the conservative definition of "spending cuts" means "social program cuts, but absolutely no cuts to the unending torrent of cash poured into the gaping maw of the military industrial complex". More regulation would definitley be a good thing, unless you suffer from some form of brain damage that causes you to believe that the reason we're currently in an economic crisis is because wall street and the mortgage brokers were overregulated, even though there were twelve straight years of de-regulation preceding the crisis. And anyone who has ever actually analyzed the history of income taxes in this country can tell you that bigger taxes on the rich results in a healthier middle class, which is what a government that plans on existing for any extended period of time should be trying to promote.
I don't know what you are talking about here. Only about half the population in the US pays income tax at all. The top 2% pay more than the bottom 95%. Corporate welfare and complicated tax incentives, breaks, and all that crazy crap isn't "conservative economic policy" - balanced budgets and smaller government that gets out of the way are what conservative policy [should] be about.
Really, the people who control almost the entirety of the wealth in this country pay most of the taxes? That would almost be fair if it weren't for the fact that it's a complete fucking lie.
http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=129270,00.html clearly shows to anyone who understands basic division that the top two percent, actually contribute less than 50% of the tax income recieved by the US, even they control over 80 percent of the wealth. Please try again, this time check your numbers.
Conservative social policies...
Social authoritarians, regardless of political stripe, need to get out of the way. People own themselves and that should be respected. But the progressives want to control every aspect of everyone's life, including how much water and energy they are allowed to use, what they should eat, where they should live, etc., etc. Nice straw man there with the whole social authoritarian rant.
Education isn't a government function - maybe you could justify some government financial support for educating the less privileged, but you're so enamored with the monopolistic state indoctrination centers all you can complain about are the religious types trying to interject their views. Really?
Ok, we'll just have to agree to disagree here. You can go ahead and move to some spot where you'll be under the jurisdiction of a third world despot if you want to live in a country that forsakes education of the masses for the financial benefit of the rich, because there are plenty of them out there, I'm just guessing that you wouldn't actually want to live in any of them, because they're all horribly regressive shitholes where a silly religion would be forced upon you under penalty of death.
Seriously, list one nation that doesn't have state sponsored educational programs that isn't a complete fucking hellhole. You can't, because they don't exist, because only a moron would want to live in a country run by people who were so stupid they didn't understand that education is the key to success in the modern world, and that it is literally in every single country's on best interest to ma
You're drinking the cool-aid if you think it's progressives leading the charge towards feudalism. Conservative economic policies are what protect the wealthy 'feudal lords' you're talking about. Their regressive tax structures make social mobility much more difficult, which is useful for keeping the wealth concentrated in as few hands as possible. Conservative social policies try to tell women that they don't have control of their bodies, and try to tell everyone what they can or can't do in their bedroom. Conservative educational policies tell you that the bible is a better source of scientific information than experts in the field. Conservative defense policies tell us that warrantless wiretaps against US citizens are OK. Really, the name says it all. Conservative policies try to conserve power for the ruling class.
Please provide some sort of example of how progressive policies try to control the population to a greater extent than conservative policies, because I've never heard anyone argue something so absurd before.
Very few people who claim to be conservative actually want small government, most of them want just regressive social policies to help maintain the status quo and lower taxes because they're the sort of people who still think that trickle down economic principles do something besides further enriching the wealthy.
The difference is, in the US or the UK, if you feel that you have a better idea than the government you can run for office and try to change things. In China, if you feel that you have a better idea than the government, you're sent to a re-education camp to convince you otherwise.
"Creating more Galaxies" is not necessarily synonymous with "Creating more galaxies that can sustain life". If increasing the cosmological constant increases the percentage of matter that forms galaxies, but also changes the makeup of those galaxies to be inhospitable to life, then there would be an overall decrease in the universes 'suitability for life'.
Given that there is no (currently known) method of testing how a change in the cosmological constant would affect other properties of matter and energy, it would be foolish to simply assume that all else would remain the same.
Please tell me I'm missing something big, and not that Cornell university published a paper with that fundamental of a flaw.
If your content is really really popular and we need bigger connections between us, I am going to charge you for the larger connections on my side, because most of my customers have no alternative to my service, the government isn't regulating my monopoly, and my second Yacht still wasn't big enough.
Please tell me you're joking. You think it's a good idea to hand over control of the largest military and largest nuclear arsenal on earth to someone 'dumb enough to give you what you want'?
Because you have decided that people smarter than you are somehow inherently dishonest?
If you've really thought that through, and you honestly believe that's the case, the list of people dumber than you, and therefore qualified for leadership, will be very short indeed.
And then I voted for him in 2008.....things change. Still, I agree, she's pretty much unelectable in my mind.
Obama's only real problem was overcoming racism. He was a barely left of center (for the US at least) charasmatic politician running against that party that America was fed up with. In the 2008 election, his race and his name were really the only things that anyone focused on when attacking him.
Palin's problem was, and still remains overcoming the bad press she generates by being a mouth breathing half-wit (although the coaching she received while sequestered for a month after completely whiffing all the softballs Katie Couric was lobbing at her helped a bit). She really only appeals to people who are just as backwards, authoritarian and unintelligent as she is. Unfortunately, that demographic seems to be taking over this country.
So how much longer till we see the GameStop's of the world start trying to use litigation to defend their obsolete business model?
I'm actually surprised game stores even carry PC games anymore, don't most of them make the vast majority of their money selling used copies of console games?
If you'll read my post further down the line, you can see that I don't give a shit about fat people, what I care about is fat people who want their obesity to be treated as a disability.
Obesity is not a physical disability (with the exception of obesity caused by physiological disorders such as Thyroid disease) because it can be managed through diet and exercise. Becoming obese is not something that happens overnight, you don’t wake up fit on Monday, go on a buffet bender and wake up obese on Tuesday, it requires a long term pattern of self-destructive, self-indulgent behavior. Obesity is the number two (fast approaching number one) preventable cause of death according to the CDC. Obesity is not some mystery disease that strikes people at random without warning, it is caused by having too high a caloric intake for your individual metabolism, size, and activity level over an extended period of time. Obesity has a simple, cheap, effective, well known cure: diet and exercise. The problem with the cure is that people don’t like changing their diet or altering their sedentary lifestyle. In other words, they don’t want the cure.
Disability status should only be given to those who have a physical impairment that is beyond their control. Thyroid disease induced obesity fits this category, but the vast majority of obesity cases can be controlled by diet and exercise, which is why both the CDC and WHO call it a preventable disease.
I honestly don’t care if someone is fat, if you’re happy and fat and that’s how you want to live your life, by all means go for it. It has no impact on me. What I do care about is people who are fat who want to be given special legal status because they’re fat.
It’s absolutely absurd that you would bring racism into this argument as though it were a valid comparison. Race is something you’re born with, and have no control over. It is not a behavior pattern. Judging someone by their physical appearance, heredity, or any other external factors they can’t control is wrong. Judging people by their behavior patterns and attitude, however, is perfectly acceptable in my book. I’m not judging people just for being obese, if people want to engage in self destructive behavior, I’m fine with that so long as they don’t start asking for special legal protections simply because they are engaging in bad behavior.
If you’d like to dispute the fact that obesity is a preventable disease in the general case, the burden of proof is on you, because both the CDC and WHO think that it is.
If you'd like to dispute whether legal 'disabled' status should be given to people with preventable, curable diseases, then I question what you think should disqualify an individual from receiving benefits under the Americans with Disabilities Act, because it seems pretty insulting to me that you would give the legal protections intended for someone suffering from real, incurable diseases like Multiple Sclerosis, Polio, Cerebral palsy, or paralysis to someone who just eats too much McDonalds and hates exercise.
Please, continue telling me what I think and what I'm capable of understanding. It says a lot about the frailty of your argument that you've chosen to abandon defending it and moved on to making unfounded personal attacks instead.
If either your 'overly efficient metabolism' or 'over active sense of hunger' are actual medical conditions, I made exceptions for them in my previous arguments. If they're just excuses you're making for fat people to continue indulging in their base instincts, then you've helped further my point for me.
No, I'm comparing the lack of self control demonstrated by fat people (who don't have a medical reason for being fat) to the lack of self control demonstrated by criminals, because both are improper responses to a feeling or emotion that result in harm to oneself or others.
Everyone gets angry once in a while. People with self control find a way to vent that anger that doesn't harm themselves or others. People without self control attack what they're angry at.
Everyone gets hungry once in a while. People with self control eat enough to satisfy their hunger and move on. People without self control repeatedly over-indulge, get fat and damage their health.
The equivalent 'food' experiment to your 'masturbation' experiment would be bulimia, not obesity. In both of those cases you would pretend to satisfy or partially satisfy the urge, but don't ever really satisfy it.
A much more accurate 'masturbation' experiment that would have the corresponding 'obesity' experiment you attempted to imply would be masturbating 10 times a day to completion for the rest of your life, then complaining about the genital chafing and carpal tunnel syndrome.
I don't think anyone who believes in god thinks it would be difficult for him to create the universe quickly, it's just that all of the evidence suggests that the universe is much much older than the 6000 year timetable that some people claim is described in the bible.
Slashdot Mirror
What's pathetic is putting up zero-content posts that attack others for no reason. I can help you find some resources to work on improving your self esteem if you would like.
Would you care to elaborate on why nuclear is certainly not the best bet in the future, or should we just put our trust in your crystal ball?
OK, so it's hidden to the visible spectrum, but it's blasting fucking laser beamns like crazy to figure out it's environment so to a $5 IR receiver (or whatever part of the spectrum they use) the thing would look like a fucking christmas tree decorated with strobe lights.
The welfare queen myth is one of my favorite conservative ghost stories too! I love how it simultaneously suggests that poor people are poor because they want to be poor, hints that the key to solving their problem is to shove them deeper in to poverty, and leaves just a slight aftertaste of racism in your mouth. Really though, bringing up disproven conservative talking points from the 70's isn't a good way to be taken seriously. No one with a brain in their head believes that welfare fraud makes any meaningful impact on the nations economy any more because it never did. The entire concept was just an attempt to scapegoat poor people for economic problems thought up in a conservative think tank in the 60's as a way to focus economic anger downward toward the underclass, instead of upward towards the wealthy, the direction in which such anger had traditionally been focused since the dawn of time.
You mean "Kool-aid"? All I hear from progressives is "more government, no spending cuts, more regulation, bigger taxes", etc. No delusions at all.
I thought you'd be more sensitive to trademark infringement in a copyright infringement thread. Seriously though, explain to me why any of those are bad things. More government is what pulled the US out of the great depression, and this is the worst economic slump since then. No spending cuts isn't a bad thing, espicially when you consider the fact that the conservative definition of "spending cuts" means "social program cuts, but absolutely no cuts to the unending torrent of cash poured into the gaping maw of the military industrial complex". More regulation would definitley be a good thing, unless you suffer from some form of brain damage that causes you to believe that the reason we're currently in an economic crisis is because wall street and the mortgage brokers were overregulated, even though there were twelve straight years of de-regulation preceding the crisis. And anyone who has ever actually analyzed the history of income taxes in this country can tell you that bigger taxes on the rich results in a healthier middle class, which is what a government that plans on existing for any extended period of time should be trying to promote.
I don't know what you are talking about here. Only about half the population in the US pays income tax at all. The top 2% pay more than the bottom 95%. Corporate welfare and complicated tax incentives, breaks, and all that crazy crap isn't "conservative economic policy" - balanced budgets and smaller government that gets out of the way are what conservative policy [should] be about.
Really, the people who control almost the entirety of the wealth in this country pay most of the taxes? That would almost be fair if it weren't for the fact that it's a complete fucking lie. http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=129270,00.html clearly shows to anyone who understands basic division that the top two percent, actually contribute less than 50% of the tax income recieved by the US, even they control over 80 percent of the wealth. Please try again, this time check your numbers.
Conservative social policies...
Social authoritarians, regardless of political stripe, need to get out of the way. People own themselves and that should be respected. But the progressives want to control every aspect of everyone's life, including how much water and energy they are allowed to use, what they should eat, where they should live, etc., etc. Nice straw man there with the whole social authoritarian rant.
Education isn't a government function - maybe you could justify some government financial support for educating the less privileged, but you're so enamored with the monopolistic state indoctrination centers all you can complain about are the religious types trying to interject their views. Really?
Ok, we'll just have to agree to disagree here. You can go ahead and move to some spot where you'll be under the jurisdiction of a third world despot if you want to live in a country that forsakes education of the masses for the financial benefit of the rich, because there are plenty of them out there, I'm just guessing that you wouldn't actually want to live in any of them, because they're all horribly regressive shitholes where a silly religion would be forced upon you under penalty of death. Seriously, list one nation that doesn't have state sponsored educational programs that isn't a complete fucking hellhole. You can't, because they don't exist, because only a moron would want to live in a country run by people who were so stupid they didn't understand that education is the key to success in the modern world, and that it is literally in every single country's on best interest to ma
You're drinking the cool-aid if you think it's progressives leading the charge towards feudalism. Conservative economic policies are what protect the wealthy 'feudal lords' you're talking about. Their regressive tax structures make social mobility much more difficult, which is useful for keeping the wealth concentrated in as few hands as possible. Conservative social policies try to tell women that they don't have control of their bodies, and try to tell everyone what they can or can't do in their bedroom. Conservative educational policies tell you that the bible is a better source of scientific information than experts in the field. Conservative defense policies tell us that warrantless wiretaps against US citizens are OK. Really, the name says it all. Conservative policies try to conserve power for the ruling class. Please provide some sort of example of how progressive policies try to control the population to a greater extent than conservative policies, because I've never heard anyone argue something so absurd before.
Very few people who claim to be conservative actually want small government, most of them want just regressive social policies to help maintain the status quo and lower taxes because they're the sort of people who still think that trickle down economic principles do something besides further enriching the wealthy.
It's funny how the people insisting on more draconian measures to protect corporate interests are the ones posting as Anonymous Cowards.
The difference is, in the US or the UK, if you feel that you have a better idea than the government you can run for office and try to change things. In China, if you feel that you have a better idea than the government, you're sent to a re-education camp to convince you otherwise.
the evaluation metrics we've refined over the past decade
In other words, as long as they keep changing the evaluation criteria, they always pass them!
I've seen more parked domains in google results than I have actually content recenty.
"Creating more Galaxies" is not necessarily synonymous with "Creating more galaxies that can sustain life". If increasing the cosmological constant increases the percentage of matter that forms galaxies, but also changes the makeup of those galaxies to be inhospitable to life, then there would be an overall decrease in the universes 'suitability for life'.
Given that there is no (currently known) method of testing how a change in the cosmological constant would affect other properties of matter and energy, it would be foolish to simply assume that all else would remain the same.
Please tell me I'm missing something big, and not that Cornell university published a paper with that fundamental of a flaw.
While I agree with your sentiment and think the whole thing is stupid, when was the last time you saw someone under 18 reading a newspaper?
A stack of 5 1/4" floppies. Those things were the perfect combination of a Frisbee and a ninja throwing star.
No, you're fucking going to the Kentucky Inbreeding Museum. You're sure as hell going to the Kentucky Creationism Museum.
If your content is really really popular and we need bigger connections between us, I am going to charge you for the larger connections on my side, because most of my customers have no alternative to my service, the government isn't regulating my monopoly, and my second Yacht still wasn't big enough.
I think that's a little more accurate.
Please tell me you're joking. You think it's a good idea to hand over control of the largest military and largest nuclear arsenal on earth to someone 'dumb enough to give you what you want'?
Because you have decided that people smarter than you are somehow inherently dishonest?
If you've really thought that through, and you honestly believe that's the case, the list of people dumber than you, and therefore qualified for leadership, will be very short indeed.
And then I voted for him in 2008.....things change. Still, I agree, she's pretty much unelectable in my mind.
Obama's only real problem was overcoming racism. He was a barely left of center (for the US at least) charasmatic politician running against that party that America was fed up with. In the 2008 election, his race and his name were really the only things that anyone focused on when attacking him.
Palin's problem was, and still remains overcoming the bad press she generates by being a mouth breathing half-wit (although the coaching she received while sequestered for a month after completely whiffing all the softballs Katie Couric was lobbing at her helped a bit). She really only appeals to people who are just as backwards, authoritarian and unintelligent as she is. Unfortunately, that demographic seems to be taking over this country.
Yeah, I didn't mean to single out GameStop, It was just the only retail video game store I could think of as an example at the time.
So how much longer till we see the GameStop's of the world start trying to use litigation to defend their obsolete business model? I'm actually surprised game stores even carry PC games anymore, don't most of them make the vast majority of their money selling used copies of console games?
If you'll read my post further down the line, you can see that I don't give a shit about fat people, what I care about is fat people who want their obesity to be treated as a disability.
Obesity is not a physical disability (with the exception of obesity caused by physiological disorders such as Thyroid disease) because it can be managed through diet and exercise. Becoming obese is not something that happens overnight, you don’t wake up fit on Monday, go on a buffet bender and wake up obese on Tuesday, it requires a long term pattern of self-destructive, self-indulgent behavior. Obesity is the number two (fast approaching number one) preventable cause of death according to the CDC. Obesity is not some mystery disease that strikes people at random without warning, it is caused by having too high a caloric intake for your individual metabolism, size, and activity level over an extended period of time. Obesity has a simple, cheap, effective, well known cure: diet and exercise. The problem with the cure is that people don’t like changing their diet or altering their sedentary lifestyle. In other words, they don’t want the cure.
Disability status should only be given to those who have a physical impairment that is beyond their control. Thyroid disease induced obesity fits this category, but the vast majority of obesity cases can be controlled by diet and exercise, which is why both the CDC and WHO call it a preventable disease. I honestly don’t care if someone is fat, if you’re happy and fat and that’s how you want to live your life, by all means go for it. It has no impact on me. What I do care about is people who are fat who want to be given special legal status because they’re fat.
It’s absolutely absurd that you would bring racism into this argument as though it were a valid comparison. Race is something you’re born with, and have no control over. It is not a behavior pattern. Judging someone by their physical appearance, heredity, or any other external factors they can’t control is wrong. Judging people by their behavior patterns and attitude, however, is perfectly acceptable in my book. I’m not judging people just for being obese, if people want to engage in self destructive behavior, I’m fine with that so long as they don’t start asking for special legal protections simply because they are engaging in bad behavior.
If you’d like to dispute the fact that obesity is a preventable disease in the general case, the burden of proof is on you, because both the CDC and WHO think that it is.
If you'd like to dispute whether legal 'disabled' status should be given to people with preventable, curable diseases, then I question what you think should disqualify an individual from receiving benefits under the Americans with Disabilities Act, because it seems pretty insulting to me that you would give the legal protections intended for someone suffering from real, incurable diseases like Multiple Sclerosis, Polio, Cerebral palsy, or paralysis to someone who just eats too much McDonalds and hates exercise.
Please, continue telling me what I think and what I'm capable of understanding. It says a lot about the frailty of your argument that you've chosen to abandon defending it and moved on to making unfounded personal attacks instead.
If either your 'overly efficient metabolism' or 'over active sense of hunger' are actual medical conditions, I made exceptions for them in my previous arguments. If they're just excuses you're making for fat people to continue indulging in their base instincts, then you've helped further my point for me.
Everyone gets angry once in a while. People with self control find a way to vent that anger that doesn't harm themselves or others. People without self control attack what they're angry at.
Everyone gets hungry once in a while. People with self control eat enough to satisfy their hunger and move on. People without self control repeatedly over-indulge, get fat and damage their health.
The equivalent 'food' experiment to your 'masturbation' experiment would be bulimia, not obesity. In both of those cases you would pretend to satisfy or partially satisfy the urge, but don't ever really satisfy it.
A much more accurate 'masturbation' experiment that would have the corresponding 'obesity' experiment you attempted to imply would be masturbating 10 times a day to completion for the rest of your life, then complaining about the genital chafing and carpal tunnel syndrome.
Yes, of course, because there's nothing easier than defying millions of years of evolution by routinely not eating when you're hungry.
Or not assaulting people when you're angry, or not raping people when you're horny, or not stealing when you're jealous.
Welcome to civilized society, where we expect you to have some fucking impulse control.
I don't think anyone who believes in god thinks it would be difficult for him to create the universe quickly, it's just that all of the evidence suggests that the universe is much much older than the 6000 year timetable that some people claim is described in the bible.