The USA has restrictive laws against showing nipples.
Less than you think. Movies? Cable? Books? Games? There aren't legal restrictions against showing nipples. Even in public, often, it's explicitly legal. The apparent reluctance to show, for example, nudity in a PG movie is NOT a matter of law. The only major media channel that has substantial laws restricting what can be shown or said are those that use public airwaves (broadcast television and radio).
I mean, you can't take "So a programming language for interpretive dance would probably find the Natal very useful." line seriously, can you? Even if someone made it, it would be like whitespace, just a joke. The energy required to make even a simple Hello, World would make it useless for anything.
That was the only part of his post that was particularly insightful. You wouldn't use natal to program a hello world application. You would use natal to program a dancing avatar... and it would be very useful for that purpose.
Making bigoted comments about Christians or Atheists is a violation of the civil rights of the USA, and the human rights of the UN, and International Rights as well.
It's NOT a violation of civil rights in the USA, and I frankly couldn't give a damn about the UN or international rights... they tend to have far weaker protections for free speech than the US has.
Sue somebody for making a bigoted comment about Christians or Atheists, and see how far you get. Unless somebody is actively campaigning for violence against a specific christian, you'll be laughed out of court.
I'm not sure that's a valid criticism, because the same observation (skin color can't be changed) could be made about ANY skin color. If it's universally true for all races, it's not racist against a particular race.
I'm glad I lived in the last century before the human race realized that it was going to die out because of the inbuilt greed of our genes which multiplied by our intelligence guarantee our extinction.
A common sentiment, shared by every generation since civilization began.
It's not a political issue in the slightest. Politics, religion, ideology, and so forth should have absolutely no input into the process of determining whether global warming is happening, and to what extent, and which processes fueling it to what degree. That's as silly as the church dictating the proper value of pi.
Now, what we DO, politically, in response to that is very much the domain of politicians, philosophers, and activists... as it should be. A scientist can't tell you to what degree individual rights need to be balanced with the interests of the global community; that's outside of their domain. The politicians need to base their actions and decisions on the results of science, not be involved in the PROCESS of science.
And reality will indeed decide which side is correct; unfortunately, if we wait for that, we'll be pretty fucked if it shows that the "deniers" really were just conservative puppets and oil company shills.
We'll be pretty fucked too, if we regulate, cap, retard, and tax energy, technology and our economy due to a threat that may not turn out to be true, fueled by puppets of the socialist left.
See how silly it sounds? I'm not saying that will happen; I'm saying that bastards are manipulating BOTH SIDES, clearly... and framing your argument against the 'deniers' in terms of politics, which you did, does harm to everybody. Whether global warming is happening or not SHOULDN'T be a political issue, and politicians and activists shouldn't be involved, either way. If global warming hadn't been immediately seized upon by politicians to push a political agenda, there wouldn't ever have been an organized political push AGAINST global warming.
There very much is a common ground. Truth. Because people disagree doesn't mean that both aren't seeking to know the truth; really, both might have reasonable positions, given everything that individual has experienced and learned to date. Reality will be the ultimate arbitrator which decides who is correct.
There may be people on either side of the debate that aren't interested in the truth... in fact, there clearly are, in both camps. Those aren't scientists, though, and they aren't doing science. They're just people interfering with science. Best to publish all data, and keep discussion reasonable and non-accusatory. The amount of political and activist cruft attaching to the believers and deniers are harming the TRUE cause, which is to find out the truth.
Even the common labels, "believers" and "deniers", are ridiculous; they have more of a place in religious debate.
I do, to a large extent. Not so much dire cases of schizophrenia, for instance, but depression? Anxiety? Anger control? Asperger's? They are real conditions, but they are claimed to exist FAR more than they really do in a significant way.
All of those disorders exist in a smooth gradiation from severe psychological problem to simple personality trait, and in the majority of cases they're probably closer to the latter. When a geek is introverted, it may be a mild case of Asperger's, but that truly gives you no better or more useful diagnoses than 'smart and introverted' once did. It may indeed be more harmful, because such a diagnoses tends to remove one's personal accountability for correcting the condition... and mild cases of all those behaviors can often be corrected by simple personal growth and mindful behavior.
Obviously, those conditions exist, and in severe cases really do call for specialized treatment. However, the vast majority of self-proclaimed Asperger's sufferers have it in no significant degree, and I suspect they are using it as a sneaky egoboost ("Asperger's may be asocial, but they're really smart") or as an excuse ("you don't want me to talk at the meeting, I'm asperger's"). Both are harmful.
It's not about entitlement to enter, it's about not taking reasonable precautions to prevent entry.
That's what you're saying it's about, but it's not. It's about knowingly trespassing into federal property. There are some abandoned military bases I could easily get into, by hopping a fence. I would still expect punishment if caught. We all KNOW it's wrong.
I often don't lock my car. It's never been stolen. If it was, it would STILL be a crime.
I call bullshit on your bullshit calling. He entered a system that he had to guess a password to access. Easy or not, there's no way for somebody to do that without realizing that they're intruding somewhere they shouldn't be. It's like stepping around the sign that says "private property, do not enter".
I don't know the amount of actual damages any more than you do, but even if there was NONE, he should still face a penalty, just like you do when trespassing... even if you don't steal or vandalize anything.
And when you're PAST racism, you get offended by both equally and for the same reason. That's a GOOD thing, and I think a lot of people are at that point. Shock at the manip of Mrs Obama, while having no such problem with a manip of Bush, shows a severe hypersensitivity to racism (or just ignorant partisanship).
Since there have been non-natives on the continent. In the US, 1/16 or above non-white meant non-white.
No; that was the case for some people and some laws at some times. Don't generalize it inappropriately when it's obviously not true for everyone. I, and nearly everybody I know and can imagine knowing, think that's ridiculous.
There are obvious ways in which Bush and Obama differ. But I think the difference is only substantial if you think the reason you're being stripped of your rights is more important than the fact that you are being stripped of your rights.
In the ways that matter, Obama is no change for the better.
I think philosophy is an incredibly important field that has been left nearly universally in the hands of idiots. I attribute that to the difficulty of falsifying ridiculous claims; charisma and persuasiveness are more important to a philosopher's success than correctness, much like religion.
That's a consequence of an increasingly powerful and omnipresent central government. It makes "raising alarms" the most efficient way to get funding; far more efficient than civilized discussion or hard work. (It is also known as "begging for a handout".) It's infected industry, science, and personal finance.
Low quality of teachers perhaps, but don't forget the general low quality of families, which directly ties into the sad state of popular culture. Ever been to somebody's house, and realized that you don't see a friggin' book ANYWHERE? Education is more the parent's responsibility than the teacher's... the school just picks up the slack and fills in the holes.
Slashdot Mirror
The USA has restrictive laws against showing nipples.
Less than you think. Movies? Cable? Books? Games? There aren't legal restrictions against showing nipples. Even in public, often, it's explicitly legal. The apparent reluctance to show, for example, nudity in a PG movie is NOT a matter of law. The only major media channel that has substantial laws restricting what can be shown or said are those that use public airwaves (broadcast television and radio).
I mean, you can't take "So a programming language for interpretive dance would probably find the Natal very useful." line seriously, can you? Even if someone made it, it would be like whitespace, just a joke. The energy required to make even a simple Hello, World would make it useless for anything.
That was the only part of his post that was particularly insightful. You wouldn't use natal to program a hello world application. You would use natal to program a dancing avatar... and it would be very useful for that purpose.
Making bigoted comments about Christians or Atheists is a violation of the civil rights of the USA, and the human rights of the UN, and International Rights as well.
It's NOT a violation of civil rights in the USA, and I frankly couldn't give a damn about the UN or international rights... they tend to have far weaker protections for free speech than the US has.
Sue somebody for making a bigoted comment about Christians or Atheists, and see how far you get. Unless somebody is actively campaigning for violence against a specific christian, you'll be laughed out of court.
I'm not sure that's a valid criticism, because the same observation (skin color can't be changed) could be made about ANY skin color. If it's universally true for all races, it's not racist against a particular race.
"Statist Capitalism" is even less like capitalism than the USSR's structure was like communism.
I'm glad I lived in the last century before the human race realized that it was going to die out because of the inbuilt greed of our genes which multiplied by our intelligence guarantee our extinction.
A common sentiment, shared by every generation since civilization began.
They do; they have the right to make bigoted comments about atheists, right back at them.
It's not a political issue in the slightest. Politics, religion, ideology, and so forth should have absolutely no input into the process of determining whether global warming is happening, and to what extent, and which processes fueling it to what degree. That's as silly as the church dictating the proper value of pi.
Now, what we DO, politically, in response to that is very much the domain of politicians, philosophers, and activists... as it should be. A scientist can't tell you to what degree individual rights need to be balanced with the interests of the global community; that's outside of their domain. The politicians need to base their actions and decisions on the results of science, not be involved in the PROCESS of science.
And reality will indeed decide which side is correct; unfortunately, if we wait for that, we'll be pretty fucked if it shows that the "deniers" really were just conservative puppets and oil company shills.
We'll be pretty fucked too, if we regulate, cap, retard, and tax energy, technology and our economy due to a threat that may not turn out to be true, fueled by puppets of the socialist left.
See how silly it sounds? I'm not saying that will happen; I'm saying that bastards are manipulating BOTH SIDES, clearly... and framing your argument against the 'deniers' in terms of politics, which you did, does harm to everybody. Whether global warming is happening or not SHOULDN'T be a political issue, and politicians and activists shouldn't be involved, either way. If global warming hadn't been immediately seized upon by politicians to push a political agenda, there wouldn't ever have been an organized political push AGAINST global warming.
There very much is a common ground. Truth. Because people disagree doesn't mean that both aren't seeking to know the truth; really, both might have reasonable positions, given everything that individual has experienced and learned to date. Reality will be the ultimate arbitrator which decides who is correct.
There may be people on either side of the debate that aren't interested in the truth... in fact, there clearly are, in both camps. Those aren't scientists, though, and they aren't doing science. They're just people interfering with science. Best to publish all data, and keep discussion reasonable and non-accusatory. The amount of political and activist cruft attaching to the believers and deniers are harming the TRUE cause, which is to find out the truth.
Even the common labels, "believers" and "deniers", are ridiculous; they have more of a place in religious debate.
I do, to a large extent. Not so much dire cases of schizophrenia, for instance, but depression? Anxiety? Anger control? Asperger's? They are real conditions, but they are claimed to exist FAR more than they really do in a significant way.
All of those disorders exist in a smooth gradiation from severe psychological problem to simple personality trait, and in the majority of cases they're probably closer to the latter. When a geek is introverted, it may be a mild case of Asperger's, but that truly gives you no better or more useful diagnoses than 'smart and introverted' once did. It may indeed be more harmful, because such a diagnoses tends to remove one's personal accountability for correcting the condition... and mild cases of all those behaviors can often be corrected by simple personal growth and mindful behavior.
Obviously, those conditions exist, and in severe cases really do call for specialized treatment. However, the vast majority of self-proclaimed Asperger's sufferers have it in no significant degree, and I suspect they are using it as a sneaky egoboost ("Asperger's may be asocial, but they're really smart") or as an excuse ("you don't want me to talk at the meeting, I'm asperger's"). Both are harmful.
Whoah, dude, turn down the Asperger's.
It's not about entitlement to enter, it's about not taking reasonable precautions to prevent entry.
That's what you're saying it's about, but it's not. It's about knowingly trespassing into federal property. There are some abandoned military bases I could easily get into, by hopping a fence. I would still expect punishment if caught. We all KNOW it's wrong.
I often don't lock my car. It's never been stolen. If it was, it would STILL be a crime.
I call bullshit on your bullshit calling. He entered a system that he had to guess a password to access. Easy or not, there's no way for somebody to do that without realizing that they're intruding somewhere they shouldn't be. It's like stepping around the sign that says "private property, do not enter".
I don't know the amount of actual damages any more than you do, but even if there was NONE, he should still face a penalty, just like you do when trespassing... even if you don't steal or vandalize anything.
And when you're PAST racism, you get offended by both equally and for the same reason. That's a GOOD thing, and I think a lot of people are at that point. Shock at the manip of Mrs Obama, while having no such problem with a manip of Bush, shows a severe hypersensitivity to racism (or just ignorant partisanship).
Since there have been non-natives on the continent. In the US, 1/16 or above non-white meant non-white.
No; that was the case for some people and some laws at some times. Don't generalize it inappropriately when it's obviously not true for everyone. I, and nearly everybody I know and can imagine knowing, think that's ridiculous.
Obama is no more black than he is white.
Does it really matter WHO a slave's master is?
There are obvious ways in which Bush and Obama differ. But I think the difference is only substantial if you think the reason you're being stripped of your rights is more important than the fact that you are being stripped of your rights.
In the ways that matter, Obama is no change for the better.
I think philosophy is an incredibly important field that has been left nearly universally in the hands of idiots. I attribute that to the difficulty of falsifying ridiculous claims; charisma and persuasiveness are more important to a philosopher's success than correctness, much like religion.
You realize that Microsoft isn't responsible for merchants doing this, and are probably highly against this behavior?
Given the same results, a plain presentation is almost always better.
Exactly!
That's a consequence of an increasingly powerful and omnipresent central government. It makes "raising alarms" the most efficient way to get funding; far more efficient than civilized discussion or hard work. (It is also known as "begging for a handout".) It's infected industry, science, and personal finance.
Who, exactly, has continuing concern about terrorist nuclear bombs smuggled through US ports?
The people charged with protecting the US against terrorism? They are evidently a little more concerned about such things than you are.
I, with a straight face, will put on the public record that I think Palin would have made a better president than Obama.
However, I feel a person selected randomly off the street would more likely than not made a better president than Obama.
Low quality of teachers perhaps, but don't forget the general low quality of families, which directly ties into the sad state of popular culture. Ever been to somebody's house, and realized that you don't see a friggin' book ANYWHERE? Education is more the parent's responsibility than the teacher's... the school just picks up the slack and fills in the holes.