> a period every 7 years where you must let the land rest
Um... That is good farming practice regardless where you live or whom you pray to. Of COURSE it will turn up that way. Ever stop to think that since the people writing this (down) were farmers? Maybe they knew this bit of very good advice and wrote it down?
> God promised those who go up to Jerusalem, that their property would be protected while they were gone.
That would only be a good example if you could prove that no one ever had anything stolen while on pilgrimage. I seriously doubt it is the case, nor could you prove it.
> why would someone faking it even make such a promise if he could not back it up
Assuming he exists.... BECAUSE HE'S A GOD and believers will believe him no matter what he says. If it turns out to be wrong, there will be a way turn turn it around so he is right some other way (or it will be mistranslated by ignorant nomads for centuries to follow).
> Only someone who created all the animals could possibly say this.
Hmm, no. If I went back in time I could say it. Maybe there was a clairavoyant/psychic helping out. It's not LIKELY, but The Creator is not the ONLY answer. Actually, to me, time travel sounds more realistic than a boogeyman staring down at me ready to send me to one of two mystical places (4, if you're cathoholic) of fire or clouds.
I'm sure you can come up with at least three assertions in the bible that didn't turn out to be true/exactly right.
Okay, I'm the last to bite on a troll. Wait, no I'm not.
> I see we have a sex-hating fundamentalist christian in our midst.
You just figured that out? There's a shitload of them, but I am not one. I'm an atheist, dick. As my new pal summernot pointed out, I only said !sex=!children. That's it. I didn't bring any morally wrong or right into it, I didn't say sex is bad. I didn't even say not to have sex. I said if you have sex, you run the risk of having kids. That is 100% accurate.
If you want to have sex every day, good for you. I wish I could get it every day, but when you DO have it every day DON'T BITCH IF YOU GET PREGNANT (or, if you're male, "if SHE gets pregnant").
> So maybe "xfree86" *is* returning pornsites for MSN. But why??
Because some clever porn site operators keyword-spammed their sites with anything, including "XFree86." That's probably the answer, instead of the Redmond Conspiracy Theories.
> Perhaps they have msn as their default page, and I need to search for xfree86 i845 patch
Then the search works. The only time I could get it to come up with that is when you search for "XFree86" just by itself. I even searched for "a XFree86" which returned correct results.
> Obviously you're not a female. Even the best contraception methods aren't 100% reliable.
Oh, please. Most of your post is pretty good, but don't make stupid statements like this. Female/Male has nothing to do with this, if you have sex, you run the risk of having kids. Female or not, if you don't want kids, stop fucking every day. Sex is not a necessity of life (well, for NEW life it is, but not to survive). If you wanna have sex, fine, but don't complain about the possibility of getting pregnant -- THAT'S WHAT SEX IS FOR!!!
Mod parent up, (+1, Zen). Okay, it's not Zen, but it's a start. At the very least it's insightful. People say things like that all the time, but don't really know what it means.
> Isn't a "professional student" what the best teachers are?
Absolutely not!!! The best teachers are those who intended to go into teaching, then worked in the REAL WORLD for 10-15 years, then went back to teaching that subject. 10 years later (unless they have tenure & don't like their job) they are usually very good professors (I don't know of any High School Archaeology teachers). They know the "facts" of the subject, but they can relate them to reality. They can tell corny anecdotes about their previous jobs and how they relate to the subject, and while the students may roll their eyes at stupid jokes & whatnot, it still makes the class more fun & the concepts make more sense and can be remembered better when it is applied to real life situations. At least, this is my experience, YMMV.
> job and LIFE satisfaction over any amount of money
Just a question. Are you, by any chance, married? I would guess not, since you can just uproot yourself and do something else. Just curious -- if you are, how did your husband (I'm assuming from your nick, you're female) take it, and does he go with you everywhere you travel? Doens he have a well-paying job?
It doesn't always return that it's adult content. I searched for "XFree86 is not adult content you fucking monopolistic tards!" and I got 0 results instead.
Wow, a president of a company that cannot capitalize words. Gives me tons of hope for the company itself (BTW, that's a joke, I assume this is not the president).
Quit your fucking whining, it's been four goddomned years. SHUT UP ALREADY, EVERYONE KNOWS THIS. Take a high school class on our political system to learn what the electoral college is, and why it's better than popular vote, you fucking troll.
> To find out whether the election has been tampered with you use exit polls
Exit polls are a bad way of counting anything. They are run by independent sources, usually newspapers & other media outlets, and have no official validity. In addition, they cannot be held at every single polling place, and you cannot demand someone tell you how they voted.
For instance, let's assume that a Libertarian has a shot (it's a big assumption, but whatever) at winning. IMO, people voting Libertarian may be less likely to answer exit polls, as they generally are more concerned with secrecy (may not be true, but assume). Therefore, the exit polls will show much fewer Lib votes than actually cast, making the results incorrect.
I agree with you that we can go on just fine with paper & pencil or some similarly simple concept, but there will always be someone (generally the loser, and this is not a cheap shot at Gore) who complains that something unfair happened to exclude his voters, such as poorer people not having the ability to use a computer (ignoring the fact that the "use" is limited to pressing one of 5 buttons next to names over & over). Or older people not being able to pull a lever hard enough, or can't read the small words since there are a billion candidates running. Or they are just stupid, which is usually the truth.
> What I don't understand is that you had to implement a whole new system on an almost nationwide scale
This is incorrect. The federal government has very little role in the actual decisions of election process. Voting processes are a state concern. True, the majority of states scrambled to "fix something," but a lot of that was posturing by the people in charge of the respective states to make it look like they did something useful while in office, while the general population was aware of it.
Most of the time they just spent a shitload of money on Focus Groups and Investigations that turned up with the result that there is nothing wrong.
In addition, there are so many different kinds of voting machines in use at any given time, even in one state.
> To run for president do you even need to be a member of some sort of party?
No, you don't have to be in any party. You can run as a total "independent" but in the current state of things, you will not be elected. There is far too much "me too" voting, so many will not vote the way they want because they "know" (even if it isn't technically true) the third guy has no chance of winning.
Florida 2000 is a good example (amazing this is brought up outside the context of recounts): Ralph Nader ran as a Green candidate (but this time is strictly Independent), and most of the Greens are left-leaning. By voting for Nader they are not voting for the Dems. Notice I didn't say they are taking a vote away from them, because the vote was not theirs -- some people wanted Nader more than Gore, so that's who they voted for.
The Democrats (obviously) didn't like this, as they believe it cost them the election, which is the case if you take the "1-on-1 is best" viewpoint. Now to get to the point. If Dean runs independently, he will be getting votes that may have been intended for Kerry. This is bad for the Dems for a few reasons:
They are less likely to get their chosen candidate in office due to lack of votes within their party -- the previously-Democrat voters are essentially switching parties temporarily
Having warring factions inside a party makes them appear split, it makes the party look weak and argumentative, thus sway voters (undecided before the election) may choose to go with the party that appears so strong they didn't even put anyone against their guy (Bush is automatically the candidate, there are no Republican Presidential Primaries this time)
In another four years, Democrats, Independents, and undecideds could look back at how unorganized the Democrats were and decide to vote for someone else entirely. This one isn't too likely, since voters seem to forget a WHOLE LOT of stuff in four years.
> There's no real reason a political party couldn't [..] hold elections, but then [...] overrule the results of the election (sorry for the mangled misquote, but it shows the point) > Of course, such a party would probably not do too well
Sort of like the Republicans this year? What you first said is exactly true, although the second is, unfortunately, not. In addition, they don't even need to HAVE a primary election -- Bush has no Republican contenders, at the demands of the RNC. As a conservative (though not a Rep) I am deeply offended by them assuming that Bush is the first choice of the majority of Republicans. It is probably the case, but they (ideally) could lose support by their lack of choice.
Unfortunately, I think he would have had the majority anyway. This is the first time I have ever wanted a Democrat to win -- it's a lesser of two evils kind of thing. I dislike Kerry less than I dislike Bush, but not by a wide margin.
> I'd be surprised if you could find half a dozen Americans who know how the British Prime Minister is chosen
Well, if the leader of the country isn't chosen by its citizens, we think it's pretty outdated and stupid, so we don't care. An even better reason is because unlike everyone else, we don't stick our noses in their business (I mean the populace, not military or Gov) and tell them how they are wrong.
> They've been working on creating anti-hydrogen in the lab,
Thanks for the link, that's pretty interesting. Don't know how much you know about all this, but if anti-hydrogen were eventually able to be made cheaper, do you think it could make a good energy source? When mixed with hydrogen, I'm assuming they "annihilate" each other? If there's enough power stored to annihilate a pair of atoms, perhaps it could be harnessed in some way. Of course, as you can tell, I'm no physicist.
> allowing them to restrain you with a security guard.
Unless that "security guard" is a police officer, you are 100% wrong. I've also seen this crap said three times in a row. You seem to be trying to get us to believe something simply by repeating it.
> I guarantee you that in just about any court in this country, setting off the "inventory management" alert is probable cause
I gaurantee you that in just about any court in this country, you'd be called either an idiot, a fucking liar, or both. You are wrong -- get out, troll.
Slashdot Mirror
> the book of His words (Scripture) and the book of His works (the Universe). Conflict between the two represents a failure of human understanding.
No, it COULDN'T be a failure of the writer. What a crock of boogyman shit.
> a period every 7 years where you must let the land rest
Um... That is good farming practice regardless where you live or whom you pray to. Of COURSE it will turn up that way. Ever stop to think that since the people writing this (down) were farmers? Maybe they knew this bit of very good advice and wrote it down?
> God promised those who go up to Jerusalem, that their property would be protected while they were gone.
That would only be a good example if you could prove that no one ever had anything stolen while on pilgrimage. I seriously doubt it is the case, nor could you prove it.
> why would someone faking it even make such a promise if he could not back it up
Assuming he exists.... BECAUSE HE'S A GOD and believers will believe him no matter what he says. If it turns out to be wrong, there will be a way turn turn it around so he is right some other way (or it will be mistranslated by ignorant nomads for centuries to follow).
> Only someone who created all the animals could possibly say this.
Hmm, no. If I went back in time I could say it. Maybe there was a clairavoyant/psychic helping out. It's not LIKELY, but The Creator is not the ONLY answer. Actually, to me, time travel sounds more realistic than a boogeyman staring down at me ready to send me to one of two mystical places (4, if you're cathoholic) of fire or clouds.
I'm sure you can come up with at least three assertions in the bible that didn't turn out to be true/exactly right.
Okay, I'm the last to bite on a troll. Wait, no I'm not.
> I see we have a sex-hating fundamentalist christian in our midst.
You just figured that out? There's a shitload of them, but I am not one. I'm an atheist, dick. As my new pal summernot pointed out, I only said !sex=!children. That's it. I didn't bring any morally wrong or right into it, I didn't say sex is bad. I didn't even say not to have sex. I said if you have sex, you run the risk of having kids. That is 100% accurate.
If you want to have sex every day, good for you. I wish I could get it every day, but when you DO have it every day DON'T BITCH IF YOU GET PREGNANT (or, if you're male, "if SHE gets pregnant").
> Lets all slashdot msn
Good luck.
> Longhorn and Sheephorn and Horned-owl
You forgot horny toad!
> mod parent up!
Mod parent down, since grandparent is horribly, horribly redundant.
> So maybe "xfree86" *is* returning pornsites for MSN. But why??
Because some clever porn site operators keyword-spammed their sites with anything, including "XFree86." That's probably the answer, instead of the Redmond Conspiracy Theories.
> Perhaps they have msn as their default page, and I need to search for xfree86 i845 patch
Then the search works. The only time I could get it to come up with that is when you search for "XFree86" just by itself. I even searched for "a XFree86" which returned correct results.
> Obviously you're not a female. Even the best contraception methods aren't 100% reliable.
Oh, please. Most of your post is pretty good, but don't make stupid statements like this. Female/Male has nothing to do with this, if you have sex, you run the risk of having kids. Female or not, if you don't want kids, stop fucking every day. Sex is not a necessity of life (well, for NEW life it is, but not to survive). If you wanna have sex, fine, but don't complain about the possibility of getting pregnant -- THAT'S WHAT SEX IS FOR!!!
> True contentment will never come through money.
Mod parent up, (+1, Zen). Okay, it's not Zen, but it's a start. At the very least it's insightful. People say things like that all the time, but don't really know what it means.
> Isn't a "professional student" what the best teachers are?
Absolutely not!!! The best teachers are those who intended to go into teaching, then worked in the REAL WORLD for 10-15 years, then went back to teaching that subject. 10 years later (unless they have tenure & don't like their job) they are usually very good professors (I don't know of any High School Archaeology teachers). They know the "facts" of the subject, but they can relate them to reality. They can tell corny anecdotes about their previous jobs and how they relate to the subject, and while the students may roll their eyes at stupid jokes & whatnot, it still makes the class more fun & the concepts make more sense and can be remembered better when it is applied to real life situations. At least, this is my experience, YMMV.
> job and LIFE satisfaction over any amount of money
Just a question. Are you, by any chance, married? I would guess not, since you can just uproot yourself and do something else. Just curious -- if you are, how did your husband (I'm assuming from your nick, you're female) take it, and does he go with you everywhere you travel? Doens he have a well-paying job?
It doesn't always return that it's adult content. I searched for "XFree86 is not adult content you fucking monopolistic tards!" and I got 0 results instead.
> Why not get a 17" PowerBook G4, it only weighs 9.1lbs less
But costs $1000 more and won't run the software I need it to run. Sorry, but "buy a mac" isn't always the best answer.
> mjl, president, The LiftPort Group
Wow, a president of a company that cannot capitalize words. Gives me tons of hope for the company itself (BTW, that's a joke, I assume this is not the president).
> since more US citizens voted for
Quit your fucking whining, it's been four goddomned years. SHUT UP ALREADY, EVERYONE KNOWS THIS. Take a high school class on our political system to learn what the electoral college is, and why it's better than popular vote, you fucking troll.
> To find out whether the election has been tampered with you use exit polls
Exit polls are a bad way of counting anything. They are run by independent sources, usually newspapers & other media outlets, and have no official validity. In addition, they cannot be held at every single polling place, and you cannot demand someone tell you how they voted.
For instance, let's assume that a Libertarian has a shot (it's a big assumption, but whatever) at winning. IMO, people voting Libertarian may be less likely to answer exit polls, as they generally are more concerned with secrecy (may not be true, but assume). Therefore, the exit polls will show much fewer Lib votes than actually cast, making the results incorrect.
I agree with you that we can go on just fine with paper & pencil or some similarly simple concept, but there will always be someone (generally the loser, and this is not a cheap shot at Gore) who complains that something unfair happened to exclude his voters, such as poorer people not having the ability to use a computer (ignoring the fact that the "use" is limited to pressing one of 5 buttons next to names over & over). Or older people not being able to pull a lever hard enough, or can't read the small words since there are a billion candidates running. Or they are just stupid, which is usually the truth.
> What I don't understand is that you had to implement a whole new system on an almost nationwide scale
This is incorrect. The federal government has very little role in the actual decisions of election process. Voting processes are a state concern. True, the majority of states scrambled to "fix something," but a lot of that was posturing by the people in charge of the respective states to make it look like they did something useful while in office, while the general population was aware of it.
Most of the time they just spent a shitload of money on Focus Groups and Investigations that turned up with the result that there is nothing wrong.
In addition, there are so many different kinds of voting machines in use at any given time, even in one state.
No, you don't have to be in any party. You can run as a total "independent" but in the current state of things, you will not be elected. There is far too much "me too" voting, so many will not vote the way they want because they "know" (even if it isn't technically true) the third guy has no chance of winning.
Florida 2000 is a good example (amazing this is brought up outside the context of recounts): Ralph Nader ran as a Green candidate (but this time is strictly Independent), and most of the Greens are left-leaning. By voting for Nader they are not voting for the Dems. Notice I didn't say they are taking a vote away from them, because the vote was not theirs -- some people wanted Nader more than Gore, so that's who they voted for.
The Democrats (obviously) didn't like this, as they believe it cost them the election, which is the case if you take the "1-on-1 is best" viewpoint. Now to get to the point. If Dean runs independently, he will be getting votes that may have been intended for Kerry. This is bad for the Dems for a few reasons:
> There's no real reason a political party couldn't [..] hold elections, but then [...] overrule the results of the election
(sorry for the mangled misquote, but it shows the point)
> Of course, such a party would probably not do too well
Sort of like the Republicans this year? What you first said is exactly true, although the second is, unfortunately, not. In addition, they don't even need to HAVE a primary election -- Bush has no Republican contenders, at the demands of the RNC. As a conservative (though not a Rep) I am deeply offended by them assuming that Bush is the first choice of the majority of Republicans. It is probably the case, but they (ideally) could lose support by their lack of choice.
Unfortunately, I think he would have had the majority anyway. This is the first time I have ever wanted a Democrat to win -- it's a lesser of two evils kind of thing. I dislike Kerry less than I dislike Bush, but not by a wide margin.
> The average /. reader is an idiot. Half of /. readers are below average. Are you scared yet?
/. poster is an idiot. We can't tell anything about the readers.
Just to nitpick, the average
> I'd be surprised if you could find half a dozen Americans who know how the British Prime Minister is chosen
Well, if the leader of the country isn't chosen by its citizens, we think it's pretty outdated and stupid, so we don't care. An even better reason is because unlike everyone else, we don't stick our noses in their business (I mean the populace, not military or Gov) and tell them how they are wrong.
> They've been working on creating anti-hydrogen in the lab,
Thanks for the link, that's pretty interesting. Don't know how much you know about all this, but if anti-hydrogen were eventually able to be made cheaper, do you think it could make a good energy source? When mixed with hydrogen, I'm assuming they "annihilate" each other? If there's enough power stored to annihilate a pair of atoms, perhaps it could be harnessed in some way. Of course, as you can tell, I'm no physicist.
> This stupid fuck burned 30 dollars
;)
How do you destroy $30 worth of $20 bills?
> allowing them to restrain you with a security guard.
Unless that "security guard" is a police officer, you are 100% wrong. I've also seen this crap said three times in a row. You seem to be trying to get us to believe something simply by repeating it.
> I guarantee you that in just about any court in this country, setting off the "inventory management" alert is probable cause
I gaurantee you that in just about any court in this country, you'd be called either an idiot, a fucking liar, or both. You are wrong -- get out, troll.