It is not "100% effective" because sexual intercourse is not the only transmission vector.
It is unrealistic because we have a very strong instinct to reproduce, and that generally involves at least one other person/orangutan whose HIV status we don't really *know* except perhaps a short period immediately after they are tested.
> Republicans are pure, unadulterated evil. Humans are incapable of purity, be it for good or evil.
This sort of talk is neither accurate nor helpful. We're all fallible humans fumbling our way through life, and there's little point in playing along with pigeon-holing, stereotyping, or dividing others into "us vs them".
The only difference between Republicans and Democrats is which subset of reality they choose to acknowledge.
> Why do you blame the government,... > instead of those "sponsors" That would be like blaming wolves for being wolves. do what you will with them, but they'll still be wolves.
> When there is an attack on institutions, why would > you blame the institution? Because the institution swore to defend us and itself, and then set a table with raw pork, invited the wolves inside, and dropped their pants and mated.
This government is no longer of the people, and won't be until we re-assert ourselves and stop being sheep. Until then, our government consists of two rival wolf packs, neither of which has any particular interest in sheep's rights.
> Nuff said C'mon, Archangel Michael. As commander of God's army, I'd like to think you can do better than plagiarizing a randomly selected Yahoo! comment. How about something unexpected, like "Row, row, row with Roosevelt?"
Seriously, if you're going to rebut a comment, explain what the problem with the comment was. Just dissing your political rivals for being your political rivals is unconstructive.
It's not about the length of the campaign, it's about the intelligence of the electorate. Anybody influenced by a tv commercial, a yard sign, a bumper sticker, or a hairdo is intellectually unqualified to vote.
A machine may be able to interpret the law; what is law, but software?
But, I ask you, can it follow The Three Laws?
1) If the facts are against you, argue the law. 2) If the law is against you, argue the facts. 3) If both the law and the facts are against you, attack opposition's character.
"The people using them" are already paying (with their health) for the pollution that others caused (and didn't pay for).
If you're trying to be fair, get every polluter to pay for remediation of their own particulate emissions, and use that to pay the difference. And the asthmatics' doctor bills.
GP is claiming that speculators gambling on what other speculators will later pay have driven the stock price up 30 times over what they would be worth to someone who was simply investing in the company itself.
I just wanted to nitpick and point out that every death is "a lack-of-oxygen-to-brain death," by medical definition. The interesting question is the reason oxygen stopped going to the brain, the "cause of death."
In this case, I believe the medical diagnosis would be "terminal velocity."
You may find their answer non-compelling (as I do), but they didn't avoid it. They said that if a producer went to some length to lock their work, then it's illegal to break their lock. And if that pushes the market to unlocked products, so be it.
Did you read this "secret document"? I've gone through the first 10 pages (and the article summary) and it sounds eminently reasonable to me so far. I've seen no indication yet that they're doing the US's (actually RIAA/MPAA) bidding.
Slashdot thinks you should build your own router using pizza boxes, empty cans of mountain dew, arduinos, and duct tape. Your use of OpenWRT is satisfactory, although coding your own router in Assembly is best.
Me, I'd just pick up whatever's in stock at the department store. I had to return one once, but otherwise they've all worked fine.
"Fine" was the wrong word, thanks for the correction.
The 8th amendment is clearly about criminal matters; the Constitution is intended to limit what the government can do, not what people/businesses can do.
If this were the government punishing the file sharer, the 8th amendment would apply.
But given this was a civil tort, it seems to me that the judge that called the award unconstitutional was correct about the insane excess, but wrong about the constitution.
Slashdot Mirror
> Sure the moral teachings cause conflict.
The conflict you show here is between current cultural norms and ancient hebrew mythology.
None of your examples show a conflict between modern science and religious doctrines.
It's not the "moral teachiings" that cause conflict, it's the historic mythology that science disagrees with.
It is not "100% effective" because sexual intercourse is not the only transmission vector.
It is unrealistic because we have a very strong instinct to reproduce, and that generally involves at least one other person/orangutan whose HIV status we don't really *know* except perhaps a short period immediately after they are tested.
> Republicans are pure, unadulterated evil.
Humans are incapable of purity, be it for good or evil.
This sort of talk is neither accurate nor helpful. We're all fallible humans fumbling our way through life, and there's little point in playing along with pigeon-holing, stereotyping, or dividing others into "us vs them".
The only difference between Republicans and Democrats is which subset of reality they choose to acknowledge.
> thus putting regulation of same out of the purview of Congress
Newsflash: any law that trumps the constitution is null and void. Congress loves to pass these, but you and your state should refuse to comply.
> Why do you blame the government, ...
> instead of those "sponsors"
That would be like blaming wolves for being wolves. do what you will with them, but they'll still be wolves.
> When there is an attack on institutions, why would
> you blame the institution?
Because the institution swore to defend us and itself, and then set a table with raw pork, invited the wolves inside, and dropped their pants and mated.
This government is no longer of the people, and won't be until we re-assert ourselves and stop being sheep. Until then, our government consists of two rival wolf packs, neither of which has any particular interest in sheep's rights.
> Nuff said
C'mon, Archangel Michael. As commander of God's army, I'd like to think you can do better than plagiarizing a randomly selected Yahoo! comment. How about something unexpected, like "Row, row, row with Roosevelt?"
And you must be really popular at the donut shop.
Seriously, if you're going to rebut a comment, explain what the problem with the comment was. Just dissing your political rivals for being your political rivals is unconstructive.
It's not about the length of the campaign, it's about the intelligence of the electorate. Anybody influenced by a tv commercial, a yard sign, a bumper sticker, or a hairdo is intellectually unqualified to vote.
Why slam republicans for hypothetically stopping something the democrats would never start?
Analyze the situation. The problem is not the other political party, it's a government that puts itself and its campaign sponsors above its citizens.
A machine may be able to interpret the law; what is law, but software?
But, I ask you, can it follow The Three Laws?
1) If the facts are against you, argue the law.
2) If the law is against you, argue the facts.
3) If both the law and the facts are against you, attack opposition's character.
Did you take that derivative and re-integrate it with the dust from whence it came?
That is the best sentence I ever read.
How could we see it coming, if it's traveling faster than light?
I am tired of you ... who ... make it seem like the vote of the people ... does not matter.... It does
That's a relief. I was beginning to think my efforts at abolishing the TSA, IRS, Federal Reserve, and foreign occupations wasn't going anywhere.
Kind of obvious, isn't it? Is any other breach of contract a crime?
"The people using them" are already paying (with their health) for the pollution that others caused (and didn't pay for).
If you're trying to be fair, get every polluter to pay for remediation of their own particulate emissions, and use that to pay the difference. And the asthmatics' doctor bills.
How about we go to an asteroid that's landing on the moon?
GP is claiming that speculators gambling on what other speculators will later pay have driven the stock price up 30 times over what they would be worth to someone who was simply investing in the company itself.
Somebody read TFA.
I just wanted to nitpick and point out that every death is "a lack-of-oxygen-to-brain death," by medical definition. The interesting question is the reason oxygen stopped going to the brain, the "cause of death."
In this case, I believe the medical diagnosis would be "terminal velocity."
You may find their answer non-compelling (as I do), but they didn't avoid it. They said that if a producer went to some length to lock their work, then it's illegal to break their lock. And if that pushes the market to unlocked products, so be it.
Did you read this "secret document"? I've gone through the first 10 pages (and the article summary) and it sounds eminently reasonable to me so far. I've seen no indication yet that they're doing the US's (actually RIAA/MPAA) bidding.
Hypothetical boating rocks.
Slashdot thinks you should build your own router using pizza boxes, empty cans of mountain dew, arduinos, and duct tape. Your use of OpenWRT is satisfactory, although coding your own router in Assembly is best.
Me, I'd just pick up whatever's in stock at the department store. I had to return one once, but otherwise they've all worked fine.
"Fine" was the wrong word, thanks for the correction.
The 8th amendment is clearly about criminal matters; the Constitution is intended to limit what the government can do, not what people/businesses can do.
If this were the government punishing the file sharer, the 8th amendment would apply.
But given this was a civil tort, it seems to me that the judge that called the award unconstitutional was correct about the insane excess, but wrong about the constitution.