Especially when you consider a liberal is replacing a liberal.
If anything, all you people yelling about how things will be thrown off-balance should be happy. Should another conservative been nominated and made it to the court, things would be skewing towards the right.
If you truly are complaining about balance in the court, then you would be just as mad about that. A liberal replacing a liberal makes perfect sense, from a balance perspective.
while everyone knows she's going to be an activist judge ruling off of her opinion because she has no practical experience.
I see. So this week "activist judge" means a judge with no prior experience. Thanks, I'll be sure to pencil that into the calender.
Let's be honest here, people. Just like nearly every other confirmation, the vast majority of the politicians with the same letter after their name as her think she would be a great pick, while the vast majority of the politicians with a different letter after their name think she would be a horrible pick.
Par for the course. To (seriously) claim otherwise is ignorant at best and hypocritical at worst.
I found it hilarious how pissed people were that she gave textbook answers during her hearings while simultaneously complaining that she would judge based on her opinions.
Aren't textbook answers the opposite of opinions?
PS: An activist judge is a judge who makes a ruling that you disagree with.
The weapon of the future. The more things we make illegal, the more things we can use as legal weapons. marijuana, kiddie porn, anything that they can outlaw they can also plant it in your house and stick you for it.
Frylock: "All right...just don't be suprised if I call the cops on your ass." Ignignokt: "Fryman, we have hidden four kilos of cocaine in your room." Frylock: "..."
The idea of this is sick...it's no different than accusing a teacher you don't like of rape. Even if you are found innocent, there is still a stigma attached to you that will never fully dissipate within your community. People around you will always have this accusation in the back of their minds.
Whatever happend to using a whoopie cusion, or putting a flaming bag of poo on someone's doorstep?
Regrowing lost limbs would be a huge shift...true, an entire industry would grow (haha) out of this technology, but a whole other industry would be put out of business: prosthetics. Not to mention that if prosthetics are knocked out, we may miss out on things like fully-controllable mechanical limbs, which could change the direction the human race goes (do we continue to utilize technology, or do we become technology?)
So you're suggesting not having any FB friends, and only communicating with people who have public profiles? I admittedly haven't tried that, but it doesn't seem like it'd work too well.
Not exactly. I meant just don't fill out any more than the minimum in the "info" section of your profile, and don't upload any pictures of yourself to your profile. That method has worked quite well for my wife for the past few years.
That still doesn't mean I want pictures of myself tagged with my name and profile plastered all over the internet.
If, knowing you didn't have a facebook profile, one of your friends tagged photos of you with your name without asking your permission first, I'd say you need new friends.
True...but I was referring to people using "privacy" as a reason to not have a Facebook account. You could leave your Facebook account completely barren, yet still be able to contact people using the service.
You have no control over what other people post though...again, I agree with that. Of course, as far as pictures are concerned, the solution is not put yourself in a compromising position where cameras are present:/
If these documents are so damaging and endanger so many people, why the fuck has the media talked about it at least a couple of times every single day since the documents were released? Wouldn't ignoring it decrease the chances of people hearing about them and going to read them? Literally millions more people are aware of these documents being leaked thanks to news sources talking about how bad it is that they were leaked.
Please note: I'm not saying your choice to not have a Facebook account is stupid, wrong, or anything like that. This is merely me expressing my opinion because of your comment, rather than directed at you.
Using this as an argument against having a Facebook account has always bothered me. Facebook only shows and knows as much as you tell it. If you fill out nothing but your name and age, that's all that will show. Likewise, if you decide to tell Facebook every little detail about your life, that's what will show. Photos work the same way...don't want someone to find out you were hitting a crack pipe last weekend? Don't post photos of you doing it. It's the "invasion of privacy" reason why many people I know have profile pictures that aren't them, or only have a handful of photos posted up. They don't want people in their business, but they still want the ability to contact people who use the service; hence, they don't put their business out there.
The same rules for chat rooms apply to Facebook. If you don't want someone to find out, don't talk/post about it. It's that simple.
James 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
This is repeated several times throughout the bible. No human can show you or tell you that it's true. If your belief is based on something another human told you then you're not a Christian. You have to pray and experience it for yourself.
So let me get this straight. If someone else teaches you the Christian faith, you aren't a Christian? That's...weird.
Not that it matters much, but I am a highly-spiritual atheist...or at least, "atheist" is what most people label me as. My definition of god isn't the same as that of most religions' definition, hence the label.
god to me isn't a discernable being, but rather an abstract idea. I don't refer to all objects as god (like most religious philosophy), but rather only the connection between them. My primary argument that I use against the common religious definition of god comes from, strangely enough, an extremely scientifically inaccurate movie:
"god must be greater than the greatest of human weaknesses and, indeed, the greatest of human skill. god must even transcend our most remarkable-to emulate nature in its absolute splendor. How can any man or woman sin against such greatness of mind? How can one little carbon unit on Earth-in the backwaters of the Milky Way, the boondocks-betray god, ALMIGHTY? That is impossible. The height of arrogance is the height of control of those who create god in their own image."
SO MANY MEMORIES with the Civ series. Our gaming circle has always been huge into the Civ games, and we spent some loooooooooooong uninterrupted sessions with Civ IV. Hell, my first time playing through Mirror's Edge took place entirely in between turns during an extended Civ IV LAN weekend.
I'm super excited about Civ V, not only because it's another chance to create even more memories, but because my wife will finally experience one of our LAN's centered around a game that no one has played before her. She got deep into Civ Rev on the DS, got super deep into Civ IV,and is equally excited as the rest of our gaming circle about Civilization V. Being married to a fellow nerd is awesome:-)
On an unrelated note, I posted about this very article on my site barely an hour ago...go figure.
The technology behind it was an impressive bit of coding. I think the problem was that a lot of people just didn't understand what they were supposed to do with it...either that, or they were just already too comfortable with the collaboration tools they currently use and didn't want to have to learn a new one.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, at work and can't view youtube. If you could point me towards something written, that would be awesome.
Either way, I'll check it out when I get home.
Especially when you consider a liberal is replacing a liberal.
If anything, all you people yelling about how things will be thrown off-balance should be happy. Should another conservative been nominated and made it to the court, things would be skewing towards the right.
If you truly are complaining about balance in the court, then you would be just as mad about that. A liberal replacing a liberal makes perfect sense, from a balance perspective.
an activist judge is one who makes a ruling based on there opinion and not on the rule of law.
And every person has a different opinion on what the rule of law actually is. The Second Amendment is a perfect example of that.
Like I said. An activist judge is someone who makes a ruling you don't agree with.
The complaints were based on her record.
But wait...I thought she didn't have a record, since she didn't have any experience. You can't have a record without experience...
she couldn't answer the question of whether or not the government has the power to tell you what to eat.
Source and quote? I listened to the hearings on C-SPAN, and I don't remember hearing her struggling to answer such a question.
while everyone knows she's going to be an activist judge ruling off of her opinion because she has no practical experience.
I see. So this week "activist judge" means a judge with no prior experience. Thanks, I'll be sure to pencil that into the calender.
Let's be honest here, people. Just like nearly every other confirmation, the vast majority of the politicians with the same letter after their name as her think she would be a great pick, while the vast majority of the politicians with a different letter after their name think she would be a horrible pick.
Par for the course. To (seriously) claim otherwise is ignorant at best and hypocritical at worst.
I found it hilarious how pissed people were that she gave textbook answers during her hearings while simultaneously complaining that she would judge based on her opinions.
Aren't textbook answers the opposite of opinions?
PS: An activist judge is a judge who makes a ruling that you disagree with.
The weapon of the future. The more things we make illegal, the more things we can use as legal weapons. marijuana, kiddie porn, anything that they can outlaw they can also plant it in your house and stick you for it.
Frylock: "All right...just don't be suprised if I call the cops on your ass."
Ignignokt: "Fryman, we have hidden four kilos of cocaine in your room."
Frylock: "..."
...the obligatory Weiner name.
Moving on.
The idea of this is sick...it's no different than accusing a teacher you don't like of rape. Even if you are found innocent, there is still a stigma attached to you that will never fully dissipate within your community. People around you will always have this accusation in the back of their minds.
Whatever happend to using a whoopie cusion, or putting a flaming bag of poo on someone's doorstep?
Or, if you want me to stay on topic, how's this:
Regrowing lost limbs would be a huge shift...true, an entire industry would grow (haha) out of this technology, but a whole other industry would be put out of business: prosthetics. Not to mention that if prosthetics are knocked out, we may miss out on things like fully-controllable mechanical limbs, which could change the direction the human race goes (do we continue to utilize technology, or do we become technology?)
I take it you've never heard of Mel Brooks...
"Testicles from a newt...I bet he's a transsexual now!"
So you're suggesting not having any FB friends, and only communicating with people who have public profiles? I admittedly haven't tried that, but it doesn't seem like it'd work too well.
Not exactly. I meant just don't fill out any more than the minimum in the "info" section of your profile, and don't upload any pictures of yourself to your profile. That method has worked quite well for my wife for the past few years.
That still doesn't mean I want pictures of myself tagged with my name and profile plastered all over the internet.
If, knowing you didn't have a facebook profile, one of your friends tagged photos of you with your name without asking your permission first, I'd say you need new friends.
Go go gadget Car-From-Demolition Man!
True...but I was referring to people using "privacy" as a reason to not have a Facebook account. You could leave your Facebook account completely barren, yet still be able to contact people using the service.
You have no control over what other people post though...again, I agree with that. Of course, as far as pictures are concerned, the solution is not put yourself in a compromising position where cameras are present :/
If these documents are so damaging and endanger so many people, why the fuck has the media talked about it at least a couple of times every single day since the documents were released? Wouldn't ignoring it decrease the chances of people hearing about them and going to read them? Literally millions more people are aware of these documents being leaked thanks to news sources talking about how bad it is that they were leaked.
Stay classy.
Please note: I'm not saying your choice to not have a Facebook account is stupid, wrong, or anything like that. This is merely me expressing my opinion because of your comment, rather than directed at you.
Using this as an argument against having a Facebook account has always bothered me. Facebook only shows and knows as much as you tell it. If you fill out nothing but your name and age, that's all that will show. Likewise, if you decide to tell Facebook every little detail about your life, that's what will show. Photos work the same way...don't want someone to find out you were hitting a crack pipe last weekend? Don't post photos of you doing it. It's the "invasion of privacy" reason why many people I know have profile pictures that aren't them, or only have a handful of photos posted up. They don't want people in their business, but they still want the ability to contact people who use the service; hence, they don't put their business out there.
The same rules for chat rooms apply to Facebook. If you don't want someone to find out, don't talk/post about it. It's that simple.
"Mhm. Yup. You're app has been approved! I'll just... ::yoink:: there we go. Thanks for your submission!" -Jobs
James 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
This is repeated several times throughout the bible. No human can show you or tell you that it's true. If your belief is based on something another human told you then you're not a Christian. You have to pray and experience it for yourself.
So let me get this straight. If someone else teaches you the Christian faith, you aren't a Christian? That's...weird.
Not that it matters much, but I am a highly-spiritual atheist...or at least, "atheist" is what most people label me as. My definition of god isn't the same as that of most religions' definition, hence the label.
god to me isn't a discernable being, but rather an abstract idea. I don't refer to all objects as god (like most religious philosophy), but rather only the connection between them. My primary argument that I use against the common religious definition of god comes from, strangely enough, an extremely scientifically inaccurate movie:
"god must be greater than the greatest of human weaknesses and, indeed, the greatest of human skill. god must even transcend our most remarkable-to emulate nature in its absolute splendor. How can any man or woman sin against such greatness of mind? How can one little carbon unit on Earth-in the backwaters of the Milky Way, the boondocks-betray god, ALMIGHTY? That is impossible. The height of arrogance is the height of control of those who create god in their own image."
FTFS:
This event should be immediately classified since it would create mass panic among the general population and destroy one's belief in the Church.
One can take the bolded section in one of two ways:
1. If you believe in god, why would the existence of aliens prove that god doesn't exist?
Or
2. Why would you deny evidence in front of you?
Did the site just crash? I wrote up a big-ass comment, but it isn't showing up....TAAACCCCOOOOOOO!!!!!!! /Kirk
SO MANY MEMORIES with the Civ series. Our gaming circle has always been huge into the Civ games, and we spent some loooooooooooong uninterrupted sessions with Civ IV. Hell, my first time playing through Mirror's Edge took place entirely in between turns during an extended Civ IV LAN weekend.
I'm super excited about Civ V, not only because it's another chance to create even more memories, but because my wife will finally experience one of our LAN's centered around a game that no one has played before her. She got deep into Civ Rev on the DS, got super deep into Civ IV,and is equally excited as the rest of our gaming circle about Civilization V. Being married to a fellow nerd is awesome :-)
On an unrelated note, I posted about this very article on my site barely an hour ago...go figure.
fact, not being a gamer at all, I'm somewhat confused as to how there can be more than one Final Fantasy, but that's not the point
From this Wikipedia article:
"As Sakaguchi planned to retire after completing the project, he named it Final Fantasy."
I will forever associate the word "airship" with Final Fantasy VI. Damn you, early-mid 1980's birth!
The technology behind it was an impressive bit of coding. I think the problem was that a lot of people just didn't understand what they were supposed to do with it...either that, or they were just already too comfortable with the collaboration tools they currently use and didn't want to have to learn a new one.