Keyboard/mouse selection within com or microsoft would be LTR since latin characters are LTR, but then it would do crazy things that seem, at first, unpredictable, once you cross a neutral (eg. the period) or RTL character. This is only on a machine localized to use RTL by default. Latin machines would show it the first way, unless you specifically embed control characters in the URL. I imagine that's still not allowed, hopefully by standard but at least by browsers with any hope of phishing security.
A driver's license is not generally evidence of citizenship. And you shouldn't have to carry even a driver's license on a walk outside on pain of potentially weeks of jail time without trial. Having a thick accent isn't a crime either (neither is not speaking English at all, for that matter).
Fault isn't zero-sum. It's the federal government's fault for not providing paperwork, and it's Arizona's fault for relying on this paperwork on a system that is known not to support their scenario. I've been legally in the United States for months without documentation, because in many cases being an undocumented alien is not only legal it's a required part of the process.
Also, I heard there were already laws against drug cartels, criminals, rapists, kidnappers, and murderers? Focusing on people for the crime of not carrying their papers when you've got these problems is treating slight disappointment before lightning strike victims, especially if it's as bad as you say.
You know, not carrying your papers to the corner store? Completely different from raping and murdering people!
It turns out that illegal immigrants are 5x LESS likely to commit crimes than native-born people (cite: http://americas.irc-online.org/am/4903), and that includes people incarcerated for illegal immigration.
But what the hell. Blame it on the Mexicans and shotgun out stupid laws that target the innocent and put them into a torture tent city. I'll take your advice and never enter Arizona. I wouldn't even vacation there. This brand of authoritarianism is not for me.
They do get anger. Arizona is trying to build off of a broken system, which they know is broken, and the feds know is broken. They deserve flack for this.
It's not ad hominem, he pointed out that he's using the fruits of his tax dollars as we speak, so they weren't wasted. The proper counterargument is to argue that the space program didn't really provide these things, probably since they would have come about through private enterprise eventually. I don't actually believe that would have happened by now, but that's pretty much the only way to claim it was "waste" when you are using the fruits of that waste.
Weight doesn't mean just any force, it means the force you exert upon whatever is holding you up in steady-state. In the ISS, the steady-state is no force against the support.
Stealing a prototype cellphone and selling it to the highest bidder is hugely creepy.
I don't like the Apple restrictions on developers, but it's not criminal as far as I know. If it is criminal, then it's probably because of antitrust laws relating to their market dominance in media players, and I would argue that this is one of a VERY small set of crimes it is not evil to commit yet it is not wrong that it's against the law.
I don't understand. If you think you can see microscopic dust particles a kilometre above you, then you must be superman. But superman can fly without airplanes, so you didn't need to listen to the air traffic advisory.
In the unlikely event that it turns out that sentient life is far more probable on planets with the conditions that also support human life (rather than there being a wide variety of conditions, mostly incompatible with human life), then the aliens have found a habitable world, pre-terraformed.
On the other hand, if our needs are orthogonal to their needs, maybe we're a masterfully convenient technologically backward slave race, intelligent enough to do their dangerous harvesting tasks without consuming any resources that they themselves need.
Because the end-result is quantized. Precision for the greatest lower bound and least upper bound just has to be a whole number. The greatest lower bound is 138. That's the number we really care about.
That link doesn't support your claim. It says that the price-per-ad is higher for advertising on the Simpsons on Hulu. It does not say that the Simpsons makes comparable revenue on Hulu as on network TV. In fact, it says that the profit-per-episode-view is much higher on network TV (the revenue is 33% higher, anyway), because there are five times as many (cheaper) ads on network TV. And that doesn't speak to the overall amount of episodes viewed. Which turns out to probably be a lot less at this time judging from the percentages quoted in your article.
So let's fix your question: if the Simpsons can't even come close to the ad revenue they get on cable TV, why would you think that South Park could?
It's true that very often the word "average" is conflated with "arithmetic mean average" (even in formal contexts), but that doesn't mean median is not an average. It is also an average.
The problem with science is that they are missing the moral factor
That's no more a problem with science than it is a problem with lollipops, stars, and waterfalls.
And actually, I find that tying ethics with religion is deeply problematic. It leads to failing to question moral teachings brought about by a religion which might in some cases be bad, very bad. You need to examine and think critically and philosophically abour morals and ethics, for yours to actually be moral and ethical.
allowing them to do everything that only hurts us, or destroys our world...Taking away our believes, in a better life afterwards, makes people lose hope for this live, losing the moral, making humankind do all kind of bad things, making live for themselves or for others unlivable.
The dominant religions on this planet teach that there will be a world-ending apocalypse but the faithful will be whisked away to a better place. *That* allows people to destroy our world. Lacking belief in an afterlife makes this world far more precious; a thing that must be protected because there is, as yet, nowhere else for us to go.
I would astonished to hear that religious non-scientific people polluted more than scientific non-religious people; I know of absolutely no evidence of this. This of course excludes the category of scientific-religious and non-scientific-non-religious, which your post also seems to exclude.
This brings me back to your original statement:
Science is religion, today people don't believe in religion anymore, they believe in science...
I'd like you to define "science", because it's not the standard definition. Strictly speaking, if you don't believe in science, you're an extreme moron. Religion is a set of unproven beliefs taken on faith, science is a process that explicitly excludes faith. Science works, that's how we figured out how to make computers, and refrigerators, and so on. It's up to you to figure out if the process of science has lead to conclusions that contradict your religion. I think it does, but you're not necessarily an extreme moron if you disagree.
I'm pretty sure you're confusing science with some set of conclusions from some scientists, but I'm not going to set up straw arguments, I need you to tell me.
People are living worse everyday, no moral anymore, lots of sickness, more struggles, no hope, and still science believes they are god...
People are living better today than they ever have in the history of the Universe, "no moral anymore" is a context-free statement but I can tell you that at least in the US and Canada youth violence is at an all-time low (and, as they say, children are our future), disease is similarly at record low levels for the past several decades, "more struggles" is again ill-defined (there are more people alive than there used to be, so I don't doubt we have more absolute struggles), there's a whole tonne of hope all over the place, and "still science believes they are god" doesn't mean anything at all and is frankly confusing.
It's for all debts, and only applies to actual bank notes and coins (not, for example, credit cards or cheques), and even then only so long as the creditor belongs to the same country as the one that issued the currency. It doesn't mean they have to sell you something in exchange for cash (you don't have that debt to them yet, and thus the legal tender thing no power), it means that they have to accept cash in payment for debts.
Those debts are strictly defined as monetary debts, not as metaphorical "debts". As such, it specifically doesn't have anything to do with whether you must sacrifice anything other than money in order to buy products/services.
Slashdot Mirror
The way it would work is more like
internal:
[NEWGTLD].microsoft.com
view:
com.microsoft.[NEWGTLD]
Keyboard/mouse selection within com or microsoft would be LTR since latin characters are LTR, but then it would do crazy things that seem, at first, unpredictable, once you cross a neutral (eg. the period) or RTL character. This is only on a machine localized to use RTL by default. Latin machines would show it the first way, unless you specifically embed control characters in the URL. I imagine that's still not allowed, hopefully by standard but at least by browsers with any hope of phishing security.
I'd really like to know the one-hour version of "everything that is all-but-universally accepted about physics".
Same as cystic fibrosis cannot be genetic, right?
I agree with the rest of what you say, but (but homosexuals sometimes procreate, for various reasons, some less sinister than others).
The central dragging area seems to have been used in the Kin phones.
To amend: an Arizona driver's license counts as evidence of legal immigration, but not one from another state.
Are you kidding me? This happens all the time, especially in Arizona (cite: http://www.startribune.com/nation/14456137.html).
A driver's license is not generally evidence of citizenship. And you shouldn't have to carry even a driver's license on a walk outside on pain of potentially weeks of jail time without trial. Having a thick accent isn't a crime either (neither is not speaking English at all, for that matter).
Fault isn't zero-sum. It's the federal government's fault for not providing paperwork, and it's Arizona's fault for relying on this paperwork on a system that is known not to support their scenario. I've been legally in the United States for months without documentation, because in many cases being an undocumented alien is not only legal it's a required part of the process.
Also, I heard there were already laws against drug cartels, criminals, rapists, kidnappers, and murderers? Focusing on people for the crime of not carrying their papers when you've got these problems is treating slight disappointment before lightning strike victims, especially if it's as bad as you say.
You know, not carrying your papers to the corner store? Completely different from raping and murdering people!
It turns out that illegal immigrants are 5x LESS likely to commit crimes than native-born people (cite: http://americas.irc-online.org/am/4903), and that includes people incarcerated for illegal immigration.
But what the hell. Blame it on the Mexicans and shotgun out stupid laws that target the innocent and put them into a torture tent city. I'll take your advice and never enter Arizona. I wouldn't even vacation there. This brand of authoritarianism is not for me.
They do get anger. Arizona is trying to build off of a broken system, which they know is broken, and the feds know is broken. They deserve flack for this.
It's not ad hominem, he pointed out that he's using the fruits of his tax dollars as we speak, so they weren't wasted. The proper counterargument is to argue that the space program didn't really provide these things, probably since they would have come about through private enterprise eventually. I don't actually believe that would have happened by now, but that's pretty much the only way to claim it was "waste" when you are using the fruits of that waste.
Weight doesn't mean just any force, it means the force you exert upon whatever is holding you up in steady-state. In the ISS, the steady-state is no force against the support.
Stealing a prototype cellphone and selling it to the highest bidder is hugely creepy.
I don't like the Apple restrictions on developers, but it's not criminal as far as I know. If it is criminal, then it's probably because of antitrust laws relating to their market dominance in media players, and I would argue that this is one of a VERY small set of crimes it is not evil to commit yet it is not wrong that it's against the law.
I don't understand. If you think you can see microscopic dust particles a kilometre above you, then you must be superman. But superman can fly without airplanes, so you didn't need to listen to the air traffic advisory.
Please explain.
Ungrateful? What the fuck have you done that should make Western Europe bow to you? Or are you trying to take credit for wars you didn't fight in?
In the unlikely event that it turns out that sentient life is far more probable on planets with the conditions that also support human life (rather than there being a wide variety of conditions, mostly incompatible with human life), then the aliens have found a habitable world, pre-terraformed.
On the other hand, if our needs are orthogonal to their needs, maybe we're a masterfully convenient technologically backward slave race, intelligent enough to do their dangerous harvesting tasks without consuming any resources that they themselves need.
Or maybe the aliens are just pricks.
Yeah, they didn't let you get killed and your debris kill others. How Hellish.
You often have a limited ability to do that in high-rise apartments, and at those heights the wind is often a bigger problem than the temperature.
If you're comparing your job against life in a third world country, then you have a bad job. Or a good third world country.
Because the end-result is quantized. Precision for the greatest lower bound and least upper bound just has to be a whole number. The greatest lower bound is 138. That's the number we really care about.
That link doesn't support your claim. It says that the price-per-ad is higher for advertising on the Simpsons on Hulu. It does not say that the Simpsons makes comparable revenue on Hulu as on network TV. In fact, it says that the profit-per-episode-view is much higher on network TV (the revenue is 33% higher, anyway), because there are five times as many (cheaper) ads on network TV. And that doesn't speak to the overall amount of episodes viewed. Which turns out to probably be a lot less at this time judging from the percentages quoted in your article.
So let's fix your question: if the Simpsons can't even come close to the ad revenue they get on cable TV, why would you think that South Park could?
Just because society B is far more ridiculous than society A, does not mean society A is not itself ridiculous.
If stupid kids are doing suboptimally with the current penalty/reward model, then yes, education is failing them.
It's true that very often the word "average" is conflated with "arithmetic mean average" (even in formal contexts), but that doesn't mean median is not an average. It is also an average.
The problem with science is that they are missing the moral factor
That's no more a problem with science than it is a problem with lollipops, stars, and waterfalls.
And actually, I find that tying ethics with religion is deeply problematic. It leads to failing to question moral teachings brought about by a religion which might in some cases be bad, very bad. You need to examine and think critically and philosophically abour morals and ethics, for yours to actually be moral and ethical.
allowing them to do everything that only hurts us, or destroys our world...Taking away our believes, in a better life afterwards, makes people lose hope for this live, losing the moral, making humankind do all kind of bad things, making live for themselves or for others unlivable.
The dominant religions on this planet teach that there will be a world-ending apocalypse but the faithful will be whisked away to a better place. *That* allows people to destroy our world. Lacking belief in an afterlife makes this world far more precious; a thing that must be protected because there is, as yet, nowhere else for us to go.
I would astonished to hear that religious non-scientific people polluted more than scientific non-religious people; I know of absolutely no evidence of this. This of course excludes the category of scientific-religious and non-scientific-non-religious, which your post also seems to exclude.
This brings me back to your original statement:
Science is religion, today people don't believe in religion anymore, they believe in science...
I'd like you to define "science", because it's not the standard definition. Strictly speaking, if you don't believe in science, you're an extreme moron. Religion is a set of unproven beliefs taken on faith, science is a process that explicitly excludes faith. Science works, that's how we figured out how to make computers, and refrigerators, and so on. It's up to you to figure out if the process of science has lead to conclusions that contradict your religion. I think it does, but you're not necessarily an extreme moron if you disagree.
I'm pretty sure you're confusing science with some set of conclusions from some scientists, but I'm not going to set up straw arguments, I need you to tell me.
People are living worse everyday, no moral anymore, lots of sickness, more struggles, no hope, and still science believes they are god...
People are living better today than they ever have in the history of the Universe, "no moral anymore" is a context-free statement but I can tell you that at least in the US and Canada youth violence is at an all-time low (and, as they say, children are our future), disease is similarly at record low levels for the past several decades, "more struggles" is again ill-defined (there are more people alive than there used to be, so I don't doubt we have more absolute struggles), there's a whole tonne of hope all over the place, and "still science believes they are god" doesn't mean anything at all and is frankly confusing.
It's for all debts, and only applies to actual bank notes and coins (not, for example, credit cards or cheques), and even then only so long as the creditor belongs to the same country as the one that issued the currency. It doesn't mean they have to sell you something in exchange for cash (you don't have that debt to them yet, and thus the legal tender thing no power), it means that they have to accept cash in payment for debts.
Those debts are strictly defined as monetary debts, not as metaphorical "debts". As such, it specifically doesn't have anything to do with whether you must sacrifice anything other than money in order to buy products/services.
I think they are fair, but not at a rate of 1000:1.