Yeah, unless you're on a dating site.
If you just want to screw around with women, stick to the real world. The online dating world is a miserable failure because people--desperate people--are driven there in the hopes that they'll find SOMEONE who doesn't share your childish distain for monogamy. And all they find are the same old man-sluts and... well, regular sluts, that they were weeding through in the offline world.
Not committing is a choice, but one that involves two people if you're going to continue "dating...and staying in that mode." It's immature, insensitive and unfair to start dating people that you have no intention of committing to, without letting them know from the start.
Um... why does writing checks make you self reliant? And I'm pretty sure that writing checks doesn't ensure better sex.
The truth is that even in pretty tight searches, you find related information that isn't exactly what you are looking for. You learn, through a search, a lot about the context of your question. Often one may be surprised by the results of a search, giving you new ideas about how others think about what you are researching--something you don't find when only reading books on your general subject, within your prescribed discipline.
Ok, I was concerned (one might say, panicked) about this perceived attack on my ability to hear the bull crap that comes from either our Tweedle Dee or Tweedle Dum. Turns out C-SPAN has it, it's just NBC's footage that's restricted, I think.
In addition to all the other accurate replies, let me direct you to the article about that vote about marijuana legality... Voting, even if it wasn't for a meaningless choice, already made for us by our corporations, subverted by our courts, can always just be ignored.
Umm... it's not the "right to protest," it's the right to free speech. And actually, I'm not an anarchist, but I don't see any reason that anarchy wouldn't be something we have a right to, if we want it...
Oh, come on--I know it's a great joke, but in seriousness, I personally went to a public high school that prepared students well enough for Georgetown, Harvard, Northwestern, Yale, etc. And while I wouldn't measue total value by this, it has to say something...
"On the one hand, there are those who purport to be unable to tell the difference between a week-old fetus and a year-old baby. On the other, there are those who claim that a baby a week before birth is completely unrelated in every respect to a baby a week after birth."
Agreed that both of these arguments are out of the realm of rational, but there is some point before which the fetus cannot survive out of the womb. Why can a woman decide not to let a fertilized egg implant in her womb, but not when to kick one out?
Two comments: First, I'm a girl too--we do exist, deal with it (and, if possible, learn to like it). Thank you. Second, you haven't ever had sex?!? How old are you? I'm now guessing really young and that my shock has revealed my erroneous assumption that everyone online is grown up.
I'm just going to toss this in, but I don't have any knowledge of the details of the war, so go easy on me... Does it matter, in an evaluation of whether the French people attempted to defend themselves, whether the army ignored a few orders? I think that the point made somewhere else, that, once their military defense failed, they responded with La Resistance makes this discussion slightly irrelevant... no offense to the fun that I'm sure you're having, rehashing 60-70 year old military history.
I wish that people would listen to Stephen Hawking more than anyone else, but the truth is that if Paris Hilton said something about it, more "people" would know... There's our lovely media for you.
I'm glad you modified your initial statement, because I was going to say that the assumption that any kind of extraterrestrial life would be "smart enough to have better plans" is a little faulty. I have to agree with the second paragraph. And add that I doubt any level of intelligence would make an entire species wise enough to understand what they're doing in their world, any better than we understand what we're doing in ours...
"The interesting thing about politicians, and I can't help but think cynically, is that they all sound like sensible people until they actually get the job."
This is true, but you can usually figure out what they're really thinking if you dig deep enough in the muck of their past. Or just listen very carefully to what's not said.
"The day before his speech [at the Democratic National Convention], Obama told reporters, 'On Iraq, on paper... there's not that much difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage.'" (Eric Ruder, 6 Aug 04)
His position is that we didn't invade with enough troops. And he still thinks that we can "win" in Iraq. (This belief suggests a head stuck so far into the sand that the world looks upside down.)
In September of 2004, he suggested targeted air strikes on Iran.
He's for giving tax cuts to corporations instead of individuals, and for charter schools instead of meaningful improvements to public schools. (And, in case anyone wants to start trumpeting the value of competition in education, please take a look at the high quality education that a truly decent public school can give.)
Perhaps most dangerously, his centrism, like the first Clinton's, and appeals to bipartisanship ignore the reality: that we need partisanship, STRONG partisanship to turn around the disaster that this country has been since we started expanding our borders and our "influence." (Oh right, that means since the beginning...) And the Democrats are in no position to be independent of the political and economic forces that control both parties and push them in the same direction. We need a real alternative.
Slashdot Mirror
You can access all of your media from any device...
Yeah, unless you're on a dating site. If you just want to screw around with women, stick to the real world. The online dating world is a miserable failure because people--desperate people--are driven there in the hopes that they'll find SOMEONE who doesn't share your childish distain for monogamy. And all they find are the same old man-sluts and ... well, regular sluts, that they were weeding through in the offline world.
Not committing is a choice, but one that involves two people if you're going to continue "dating...and staying in that mode." It's immature, insensitive and unfair to start dating people that you have no intention of committing to, without letting them know from the start.
How is this different from Orb?
Um... why does writing checks make you self reliant? And I'm pretty sure that writing checks doesn't ensure better sex.
The truth is that even in pretty tight searches, you find related information that isn't exactly what you are looking for. You learn, through a search, a lot about the context of your question. Often one may be surprised by the results of a search, giving you new ideas about how others think about what you are researching--something you don't find when only reading books on your general subject, within your prescribed discipline.
Ok, I was concerned (one might say, panicked) about this perceived attack on my ability to hear the bull crap that comes from either our Tweedle Dee or Tweedle Dum. Turns out C-SPAN has it, it's just NBC's footage that's restricted, I think.
Phew. (for small favors)
Isn't that what Bush's pre-emptive war doctrine is?
I'm pretty sure that there isn't anything in between and I'm pretty sure they're the only options.
Go for the revolt. It's obviously the only effective thing to do and it's how our country tried it the first time, maybe we can get it right now...
In addition to all the other accurate replies, let me direct you to the article about that vote about marijuana legality... Voting, even if it wasn't for a meaningless choice, already made for us by our corporations, subverted by our courts, can always just be ignored.
Umm... it's not the "right to protest," it's the right to free speech. And actually, I'm not an anarchist, but I don't see any reason that anarchy wouldn't be something we have a right to, if we want it...
Oh, come on--I know it's a great joke, but in seriousness, I personally went to a public high school that prepared students well enough for Georgetown, Harvard, Northwestern, Yale, etc. And while I wouldn't measue total value by this, it has to say something...
"On the one hand, there are those who purport to be unable to tell the difference between a week-old fetus and a year-old baby. On the other, there are those who claim that a baby a week before birth is completely unrelated in every respect to a baby a week after birth."
Agreed that both of these arguments are out of the realm of rational, but there is some point before which the fetus cannot survive out of the womb. Why can a woman decide not to let a fertilized egg implant in her womb, but not when to kick one out?
Two comments: First, I'm a girl too--we do exist, deal with it (and, if possible, learn to like it). Thank you. Second, you haven't ever had sex?!? How old are you? I'm now guessing really young and that my shock has revealed my erroneous assumption that everyone online is grown up.
Seriously, limit that lameness to the other, relevant, thread... (French Response, I think?)
I'm just going to toss this in, but I don't have any knowledge of the details of the war, so go easy on me... Does it matter, in an evaluation of whether the French people attempted to defend themselves, whether the army ignored a few orders? I think that the point made somewhere else, that, once their military defense failed, they responded with La Resistance makes this discussion slightly irrelevant... no offense to the fun that I'm sure you're having, rehashing 60-70 year old military history.
I wish that people would listen to Stephen Hawking more than anyone else, but the truth is that if Paris Hilton said something about it, more "people" would know... There's our lovely media for you.
I'm glad you modified your initial statement, because I was going to say that the assumption that any kind of extraterrestrial life would be "smart enough to have better plans" is a little faulty. I have to agree with the second paragraph. And add that I doubt any level of intelligence would make an entire species wise enough to understand what they're doing in their world, any better than we understand what we're doing in ours...
Can you explain how Obama would "split" the liberal vote, if the competition was between the Republican nominee and Obama?
This is true, but you can usually figure out what they're really thinking if you dig deep enough in the muck of their past. Or just listen very carefully to what's not said.
"The day before his speech [at the Democratic National Convention], Obama told reporters, 'On Iraq, on paper... there's not that much difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage.'" (Eric Ruder, 6 Aug 04) His position is that we didn't invade with enough troops. And he still thinks that we can "win" in Iraq. (This belief suggests a head stuck so far into the sand that the world looks upside down.)
In September of 2004, he suggested targeted air strikes on Iran. He's for giving tax cuts to corporations instead of individuals, and for charter schools instead of meaningful improvements to public schools. (And, in case anyone wants to start trumpeting the value of competition in education, please take a look at the high quality education that a truly decent public school can give.)
Perhaps most dangerously, his centrism, like the first Clinton's, and appeals to bipartisanship ignore the reality: that we need partisanship, STRONG partisanship to turn around the disaster that this country has been since we started expanding our borders and our "influence." (Oh right, that means since the beginning...) And the Democrats are in no position to be independent of the political and economic forces that control both parties and push them in the same direction. We need a real alternative.