From your logic, if whites were not racist, then Obama would have gotten 65% of the white vote too, which would have put him in even more firmly. Please take your FUD and shove it up your ar**
Voting on basis of skin colour is a very stupid thing to do. But I doubt the blacks voted him in solely on skin colour. Naa, it can't have anything to do with the fact that blacks feel that they are discriminated against in the States (and don't deny it) and feel that a black president would decrease that discrimination and give them more opportunities.
And regardless, if black Americans voted on basis of skin colour, that doesn't mean that it makes any sense for white people to do the same. Just because someone else does something wrong, doesn't give anyone else the right to do something wrong. And it is the white people of America and the world that have discriminated against blacks for centuries, and instead of realising that mistake, they deny that it has any effects today and choose to blame the state of a lot of people of a race on that entire race. Africans are of course not a single race, but for all intents and purposes, those in the U.S. are.
You're an idiot and a thinly veiled racist. Fuck you.
My last girlfriend and I used condoms AND the rhythm method, and she still got pregnant. I broke up with her because she aborted the child - this after saying about gazillion times over 4 years that she wanted a child with me. It was always my idea to use protection. Anyway, I've abstained from sex (but not sexual activity) and relationships since, 19 months now.
As to why you should give up, the answer is roughly that you probably don't have anything to offer to women. Firstly, note that only about 40% of men reproduced [fsu.edu] compared to twice that percentage for women (as inferred from mitochondrial DNA), so you're in a man's normal condition.
Wow, that link is one of the most interesting things I have ever read. If only I had mod points.
I do agree, that it is usually not going to work, a relationship between an avowed atheist and a Christian, but it will be inevitable that you get better at talking to people with different beliefs and values without getting bigoted (atheists can be very bigotedly anti-religion to the extent they cause the same problems they accuse religion of causing).
But the point is practice at getting along well with people that have ideas you may consider stupid, bodes very well at you being able to get along better with like minded beings.
But there also exist a lot of unreligious people who go to church. They say they believe in God, but they don't follow every rule, obligation and custom of their church/denomination. I didn't say of Christianity, because the basic rules of Christianity are so unbelievably simple, that very few Christians know what they are.
I think it's more along the lines that you have to discard your wealth (e.g. give to the poor) to be able to get to heaven. I'm strictly atheist, but that is a sentiment I would agree with. And you'd be surprised by the number of rich people that just can't be unselfish. I've worked for charities, such as Save the Children, and I've found that the people most likely to give seem to be lower middle class, and those rich ladies with fur coats are hard to get anything from. Of course, once rich becomes super-wealthy (e.g. Bill Gates) it becomes easier to give.
Anyway, in a society where the poor are not looked after, it is quite common for the poor people to rise up, therefore, by giving to the poor, just enough, the rich are able to retain their position of power; or on the other hand, retain stability in a society. Not that that's the reason that you should give.
Interesting that MS has support for Maori... Can't see a good commercial reason for that, but good on them:-) Very surprising for me actually... I just randomly picked 3 languages I assumed (semi-incorrectly) that MS had no support for.
I wasn't saying that lack of support for Latin, or any other language was an issue. I was merely replying to parent who dared to have a language mentioned.
I would say that MS has more than exceeded necessary language support (for money making purposes), they're not a charity.
Try writing
0b1010101010011111011011101011010101 in decimal
It thought that it was a big decimal number (it could have been any base higher than 2) and put it in standard from.
Who is the head of state in Canada, at this very moment, 1 MAY 2009? did you guess Stephen Harper? Because if you did, you would be wrong. The head of state in Canada is none other than Queen Elizabeth the Second.
Queen Elizabeth is the head of state only by name. She doesn't even hold much weight in the UK itself these days. Canada is essentially independent. Do they have to do ANYTHING the UK commands them to do?
and before you go lecturing me on history, I would like to note that Canada DID NOT fight in Viet Nam Canada except for small number of troops in 1973 to help enforce the Paris Peace Accords.
Point taken. I was wrong.
So, kindly get a clue. Is Canada "better" than the USA? IMHO, yes. Not a lot. But a little is enough.
I hold to my opinion that no country is better than another.
1775 - War of Independence. Canada did not exist as a nation. The Brits got kicked up the backside repeatedly - they lost the entire United States - oh yay! They didn't lose Canada!!! VICTORY!!!.
Phillipines has nothing to do with Canada - and yes, that was a very unjust war, but both invasions of Canada were quite justified - they were at war with the British Empire. Oh, and the Canadians treated their Aboriginals with the utmost respect (sarcasm).
The Canadians didn't participate in the Boer War, didn't burn and salt the land, and didn't put blacks and Afrikaans people in internment camps. Oh no, of course not.
The Canadians also didn't participate in World War I - a pointless war, on no, of course not! They also didn't fight in Vietnam, no they're too perfect for that.
The U.S.A has done more stuff because it is bigger. It's not really worse than Canada, and Canada has NEVER kicked US arse, and US has never kicked Canada's arse. Any conflicts in the land of what is now the nation of Canada was a conflict with the British EMPIRE - which was bigger, and conquered more people than the U.S. ever did. So you could say, at that time, Canada was part of a bigger evil.
I hold no grudge against Canadians, or USians, or British. Atrocities have been committed by many countries. But trying to say that YOUR country is better than another while twisting history, is just plain idiotic.
You don't need to twist history to show that your country is better. Your country isn't better, well the people aren't anyway. You may currently have better policies, laws, etc. but that doesn't make you any better. Not better than Iran, not better than North Korea, not better than Israel, nor Saudi Arabia.
Our only consolation is we have all the water and oil, and the last time you invaded Canada, we kicked your ass.
I am neither British nor American nor Canadian. But I do know that in the war of 1812 the US was fighting the British Empire, not Canadians. A good majority of the troops came from England. Secondly, both armies invaded each others' territories and were repelled. Thirdly, the war ended because BOTH SIDES had no reason left to fight (it was indirectly caused by the Napoleonic wars and directly by the British impressment of US sailors among other things).
Honestly, it pisses me off when Canadians and USians carry on about the war of 1812, and never seem to know what the fuck they are talking about.
And the way Canadians go on about how much better they are than Americans also pisses me off, from an outside perspective, one can barely tell the difference.
I can see that you are an intelligent person. However, may I be so rude as to tell you that your ability to communicate effectively is hindered by your quickness to anger, and dislike of being disagreed with.
I insulted you merely, because you insulted bitrex with no justification whatsoever. I was hoping that you would see the pointlessness of the insults. I am not prone to insulting others myself, and I apologise if you were insulted by what I said. However, I was saying it merely to make you think, and realise how reasonless angry vitriol can be. I failed to make that point to you.
And I would suggest you did further research into phonology before insulting people merely for disagreeing with you. And even then, an insult is wasted breath, or in this case, finger movement.
I do get a feeling that I am wasting my time writing this. But I do hope that you will at least try and understand what I am saying.
Oh bullshit. Next you'll say it's the Chinese's fault that they supported Mao Ze Dong, who then committed atrocities, and the Russians' fault for supporting Stalin and Lenin, and the Germans' fault for letting Hitler get into power... I'm sure I could go on until we've got populations in every country supporting idiots/tyrants into power. If people knew the true consequences of their votes/support, which they rarely do, through lack of perceptiveness, laziness, or ignorance, then the world would be a lot better.
Give the USians some credit, they have voted in a much better leader now. Obama has even apologised for the actions of Bush; without specifically mentioning him. I never liked American governance much, not even Clinton - though I admit he achieved a lot. But all this U.S. hate is childish. Just as childish as the hate fests between China, Korea, Japan. Grow the fuck up. People are pretty much the same everywhere, different cultures yes, with some cultures being more accepting of differences, and such, but in the end, humans anywhere are all pretty darned similar; and most capable of the most horrendous things. Even most of the people here, though they'll never admit it. But there are plenty of otherwise good people who have committed atrocities in the name of their country/religion/ideology/family, any group really. And we are also capable of unfathomable kindness - hopefully that wins through in the end - but it will not happen with so much hate flying around.
That really depends on whether you count words borrowed from the other romance languages which were borrowed / evolved from Latin as being borrowed from Latin. It also depends on whether or not said English lexicon belongs to a biologist.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it's still "koeieuier" on Slashdot. See subject.
From your logic, if whites were not racist, then Obama would have gotten 65% of the white vote too, which would have put him in even more firmly. Please take your FUD and shove it up your ar**
Voting on basis of skin colour is a very stupid thing to do. But I doubt the blacks voted him in solely on skin colour. Naa, it can't have anything to do with the fact that blacks feel that they are discriminated against in the States (and don't deny it) and feel that a black president would decrease that discrimination and give them more opportunities.
And regardless, if black Americans voted on basis of skin colour, that doesn't mean that it makes any sense for white people to do the same. Just because someone else does something wrong, doesn't give anyone else the right to do something wrong. And it is the white people of America and the world that have discriminated against blacks for centuries, and instead of realising that mistake, they deny that it has any effects today and choose to blame the state of a lot of people of a race on that entire race. Africans are of course not a single race, but for all intents and purposes, those in the U.S. are.
You're an idiot and a thinly veiled racist. Fuck you.
Maybe you should look up "typo" in your English dictionary.
My last girlfriend and I used condoms AND the rhythm method, and she still got pregnant. I broke up with her because she aborted the child - this after saying about gazillion times over 4 years that she wanted a child with me. It was always my idea to use protection. Anyway, I've abstained from sex (but not sexual activity) and relationships since, 19 months now.
As to why you should give up, the answer is roughly that you probably don't have anything to offer to women. Firstly, note that only about 40% of men reproduced [fsu.edu] compared to twice that percentage for women (as inferred from mitochondrial DNA), so you're in a man's normal condition.
Wow, that link is one of the most interesting things I have ever read. If only I had mod points.
Shit, sounds just like College. And WOW. And my hunting club. Shite. I'm as bad as Tom Cruise, I'm going to murder myself now. Goodbye.
I do agree, that it is usually not going to work, a relationship between an avowed atheist and a Christian, but it will be inevitable that you get better at talking to people with different beliefs and values without getting bigoted (atheists can be very bigotedly anti-religion to the extent they cause the same problems they accuse religion of causing).
But the point is practice at getting along well with people that have ideas you may consider stupid, bodes very well at you being able to get along better with like minded beings.
But there also exist a lot of unreligious people who go to church. They say they believe in God, but they don't follow every rule, obligation and custom of their church/denomination. I didn't say of Christianity, because the basic rules of Christianity are so unbelievably simple, that very few Christians know what they are.
I think it's more along the lines that you have to discard your wealth (e.g. give to the poor) to be able to get to heaven. I'm strictly atheist, but that is a sentiment I would agree with. And you'd be surprised by the number of rich people that just can't be unselfish. I've worked for charities, such as Save the Children, and I've found that the people most likely to give seem to be lower middle class, and those rich ladies with fur coats are hard to get anything from. Of course, once rich becomes super-wealthy (e.g. Bill Gates) it becomes easier to give.
Anyway, in a society where the poor are not looked after, it is quite common for the poor people to rise up, therefore, by giving to the poor, just enough, the rich are able to retain their position of power; or on the other hand, retain stability in a society. Not that that's the reason that you should give.
No interfaces that I am aware of, but there are Coptic script and spell check packages available for both Linux and Windows.
Interesting that MS has support for Maori... Can't see a good commercial reason for that, but good on them :-) Very surprising for me actually... I just randomly picked 3 languages I assumed (semi-incorrectly) that MS had no support for.
I wasn't saying that lack of support for Latin, or any other language was an issue. I was merely replying to parent who dared to have a language mentioned.
I would say that MS has more than exceeded necessary language support (for money making purposes), they're not a charity.
... were our biggest allied fighting the Soviets in the 70s and 80s...
Insightful?
Some languages Ubuntu has that Windows doesn't: Xhosa, Maori, Latin. And many others.
Oh, and I'm a linguistics nerd, not a physics nerd ;-)
Oh right... I thought that you thought he meant "miles" when he said "meters". Sorry for getting you wrong.
Yep, almost as deadly as the swine flu.
Sorry. 500 feet/second ~ 150 METERS/s ~ 340 mi/h
It's called the metric system. And bullets are almost always measured in ft/s or m/s, not usually mi/h.
Try writing
0b1010101010011111011011101011010101 in decimal
It thought that it was a big decimal number (it could have been any base higher than 2) and put it in standard from.
Who is the head of state in Canada, at this very moment, 1 MAY 2009? did you guess Stephen Harper? Because if you did, you would be wrong. The head of state in Canada is none other than Queen Elizabeth the Second.
Queen Elizabeth is the head of state only by name. She doesn't even hold much weight in the UK itself these days. Canada is essentially independent. Do they have to do ANYTHING the UK commands them to do?
and before you go lecturing me on history, I would like to note that Canada DID NOT fight in Viet Nam Canada except for small number of troops in 1973 to help enforce the Paris Peace Accords.
Point taken. I was wrong.
So, kindly get a clue. Is Canada "better" than the USA? IMHO, yes. Not a lot. But a little is enough.
I hold to my opinion that no country is better than another.
1775 - War of Independence. Canada did not exist as a nation. The Brits got kicked up the backside repeatedly - they lost the entire United States - oh yay! They didn't lose Canada!!! VICTORY!!!.
Phillipines has nothing to do with Canada - and yes, that was a very unjust war, but both invasions of Canada were quite justified - they were at war with the British Empire. Oh, and the Canadians treated their Aboriginals with the utmost respect (sarcasm).
The Canadians didn't participate in the Boer War, didn't burn and salt the land, and didn't put blacks and Afrikaans people in internment camps. Oh no, of course not.
The Canadians also didn't participate in World War I - a pointless war, on no, of course not! They also didn't fight in Vietnam, no they're too perfect for that.
The U.S.A has done more stuff because it is bigger. It's not really worse than Canada, and Canada has NEVER kicked US arse, and US has never kicked Canada's arse. Any conflicts in the land of what is now the nation of Canada was a conflict with the British EMPIRE - which was bigger, and conquered more people than the U.S. ever did. So you could say, at that time, Canada was part of a bigger evil.
I hold no grudge against Canadians, or USians, or British. Atrocities have been committed by many countries. But trying to say that YOUR country is better than another while twisting history, is just plain idiotic.
You don't need to twist history to show that your country is better. Your country isn't better, well the people aren't anyway. You may currently have better policies, laws, etc. but that doesn't make you any better. Not better than Iran, not better than North Korea, not better than Israel, nor Saudi Arabia.
Our only consolation is we have all the water and oil, and the last time you invaded Canada, we kicked your ass.
I am neither British nor American nor Canadian. But I do know that in the war of 1812 the US was fighting the British Empire, not Canadians. A good majority of the troops came from England. Secondly, both armies invaded each others' territories and were repelled. Thirdly, the war ended because BOTH SIDES had no reason left to fight (it was indirectly caused by the Napoleonic wars and directly by the British impressment of US sailors among other things).
Honestly, it pisses me off when Canadians and USians carry on about the war of 1812, and never seem to know what the fuck they are talking about.
And the way Canadians go on about how much better they are than Americans also pisses me off, from an outside perspective, one can barely tell the difference.
Thank you.
Shanen,
I can see that you are an intelligent person. However, may I be so rude as to tell you that your ability to communicate effectively is hindered by your quickness to anger, and dislike of being disagreed with.
I insulted you merely, because you insulted bitrex with no justification whatsoever. I was hoping that you would see the pointlessness of the insults. I am not prone to insulting others myself, and I apologise if you were insulted by what I said. However, I was saying it merely to make you think, and realise how reasonless angry vitriol can be. I failed to make that point to you.
And I would suggest you did further research into phonology before insulting people merely for disagreeing with you. And even then, an insult is wasted breath, or in this case, finger movement.
I do get a feeling that I am wasting my time writing this. But I do hope that you will at least try and understand what I am saying.
Oh dear... human society is all pointless... I think I'll just go build myself a small hut in the forest and live there forever.
If you want, we can move to an anarchy and see how long Gates gets to live safely.
Quite a long time I imagine. Being able to afford a personal army without federal interference and all that.
Oh bullshit. Next you'll say it's the Chinese's fault that they supported Mao Ze Dong, who then committed atrocities, and the Russians' fault for supporting Stalin and Lenin, and the Germans' fault for letting Hitler get into power... I'm sure I could go on until we've got populations in every country supporting idiots/tyrants into power. If people knew the true consequences of their votes/support, which they rarely do, through lack of perceptiveness, laziness, or ignorance, then the world would be a lot better.
Give the USians some credit, they have voted in a much better leader now. Obama has even apologised for the actions of Bush; without specifically mentioning him. I never liked American governance much, not even Clinton - though I admit he achieved a lot. But all this U.S. hate is childish. Just as childish as the hate fests between China, Korea, Japan. Grow the fuck up. People are pretty much the same everywhere, different cultures yes, with some cultures being more accepting of differences, and such, but in the end, humans anywhere are all pretty darned similar; and most capable of the most horrendous things. Even most of the people here, though they'll never admit it. But there are plenty of otherwise good people who have committed atrocities in the name of their country/religion/ideology/family, any group really. And we are also capable of unfathomable kindness - hopefully that wins through in the end - but it will not happen with so much hate flying around.
That really depends on whether you count words borrowed from the other romance languages which were borrowed / evolved from Latin as being borrowed from Latin. It also depends on whether or not said English lexicon belongs to a biologist.