They are all in a single place and mostly keeping to themselves. Do you really want that kind of people roaming around without a place made to accommodate their behavior?
pretty much the whole western world where the vast majority of women nearly always get equal or preferential treatment.
FYI, the debate is about turning "vast majority" to "all" and removing the "nearly".
You know, otherwise it's like having: Right to self-determination on most cases. Right to liberty, usually. Right to due process of law, for the vast majority. Right to freedom of movement, in almost all circumstances. Right to freedom of thought, except when it's inconvenient....
I agree. And I'm also starting to think it's not even made of cheese.
I mean, come on! We saw no rats in any of the videos! Are they trying to convince us it's some kind of magical cheese that rats dislike? It simply makes no sense.
I usually don't answer to such posts but I will today.
What amuses me most is that you probably think you're about as smart as me and that you actually have the mental capacity to argue the point you present.
If you in fact believe what you're saying, intellectually you're barely more than a monkey. Somewhat sadly, you'll most assuredly never believe how unprepared you are to understand the idiocy on your arguments, or even the fact that there is so much of it.
Anyway. Don't worry. Keep believing and live your life to the extent your limitations allow. You'll probably even be happier than the average.
If you made this argument, mockery is more than you deserved.
So: religion and science could coexist if people weren't so stupid as to not understand what science is? And: religion concerns the ultimate causes of things by definition?
I wonder how many on that 400.000 group, if offered a choice between ten thousand bucks or eliminating their entire personal carbon foot print, would chose the former.
I wonder how many would know how much it would cost to eliminate their entire personal carbon footprint.
Some people out there have motivations other than "money" and "lulz".
Things like "respect of one's peers", "ideology", "non-conformism" or even "the challenge of doing something hard no one else can do", can make some people take quite large risks.
You're equating "raids" with "stopping", in a thread about how raids didn't stop anything.
A site which makes a few sincere threats, let alone organisational efforts, against the wrong people will be identified very quickly, because, well, all traffic has a source and a destination.
And once it's been identified it will be... What exactly? Raided? Censored with an internet censoring machine?
Are you really suggesting that one can't discuss criminal activity online? What medium do you think abductions, homicides and terrorist attacks are planned with? Postcards? The ultra-secure, never tapped phones?
The approximate field of view of an individual human eye is 95 away from the nose, 75 downward, 60 toward the nose, and 60 upward, allowing humans to have an almost 180-degree forward-facing horizontal field of view. With eyeball rotation of about 90 (head rotation excluded, peripheral vision included), horizontal field of view is as high as 270. About 12–15 temporal and 1.5 below the horizontal is the optic nerve or blind spot which is roughly 7.5 high and 5.5 wide.
So just send the weapon maker to enemy territory to build/make it there. Even if he makes a mistake and kills himself, there's a chance his corpse will infect the surroundings.
Slashdot Mirror
They are all in a single place and mostly keeping to themselves. Do you really want that kind of people roaming around without a place made to accommodate their behavior?
It's like destroying a prison to stop crime.
pretty much the whole western world where the vast majority of women nearly always get equal or preferential treatment.
FYI, the debate is about turning "vast majority" to "all" and removing the "nearly".
You know, otherwise it's like having: ...
Right to self-determination on most cases.
Right to liberty, usually.
Right to due process of law, for the vast majority.
Right to freedom of movement, in almost all circumstances.
Right to freedom of thought, except when it's inconvenient.
I agree. And I'm also starting to think it's not even made of cheese.
I mean, come on! We saw no rats in any of the videos! Are they trying to convince us it's some kind of magical cheese that rats dislike? It simply makes no sense.
Your pants have no front pockets?
Are you in a prison, mental facility or beach?
Had they remembered their high school physics, they'd have known that the ideal phone would be homogeneous, friction-less and spherical.
We should all do an effort, on country, company and personal level to make this world more livable for our children.
What I don't like about that argument is that is seems to imply that "we all" have "our children".
Specifically, what I don't like is the "our" in your sentence.
Haiti consumes 0.01KW/person. We should all strive to reach the ecological responsibility displayed by Haitians.
As opposed to saying the ultimate cause is "random", a non-explanation presuming a causal world,
You're about one full century behind in your physics. Nice try though.
I usually don't answer to such posts but I will today.
What amuses me most is that you probably think you're about as smart as me and that you actually have the mental capacity to argue the point you present.
If you in fact believe what you're saying, intellectually you're barely more than a monkey. Somewhat sadly, you'll most assuredly never believe how unprepared you are to understand the idiocy on your arguments, or even the fact that there is so much of it.
Anyway. Don't worry. Keep believing and live your life to the extent your limitations allow. You'll probably even be happier than the average.
To do so is like arguing about the hardness of fire. It makes no sense.
If you can't make sense of the hardness of fire, maybe you should stick to religion. They have lower standards.
If you made this argument, mockery is more than you deserved.
So: religion and science could coexist if people weren't so stupid as to not understand what science is? And: religion concerns the ultimate causes of things by definition?
by definition, religion concerns the ultimate causes of things
By which definition? Because it's most certainly none given by religious people. Otherwise there wouldn't be any Religion vs Science debate.
There would be little to discuss if Religion said "Ok, evolution is real, but its ultimate cause is angels.".
Indeed. Now that KSP has a budget mode, safe missions to test feasibility with almost no scientific payload became more interesting.
Which number is bigger? 15 or 5.
Are there hats?
Do owls exist?
And yet, only one side should matter; the people.
And no, corporations aren't people and each person counts as one, regardless of their bank account and army of lobbyists.
Sasquatch? Is that you?
I could be the man to make that alternative! I will make "CollectiveProduction" or CollProd!
If only I had some money to start my project...
Suicide doesn't erase the past carbon footprint. I would expect an ecologist to want to erase his footprint debt before leaving.
I wonder how many on that 400.000 group, if offered a choice between ten thousand bucks or eliminating their entire personal carbon foot print, would chose the former.
I wonder how many would know how much it would cost to eliminate their entire personal carbon footprint.
Some people out there have motivations other than "money" and "lulz".
Things like "respect of one's peers", "ideology", "non-conformism" or even "the challenge of doing something hard no one else can do", can make some people take quite large risks.
"Stopping rape just makes people better rapists."
You're equating "raids" with "stopping", in a thread about how raids didn't stop anything.
A site which makes a few sincere threats, let alone organisational efforts, against the wrong people will be identified very quickly, because, well, all traffic has a source and a destination.
And once it's been identified it will be... What exactly? Raided? Censored with an internet censoring machine?
Are you really suggesting that one can't discuss criminal activity online? What medium do you think abductions, homicides and terrorist attacks are planned with? Postcards? The ultra-secure, never tapped phones?
Raids only make sites become raid-proof. Just as monitoring creates encryption and oppression creates rebellion.
But of course one cannot fight the core problem when the core problem is oneself.
The approximate field of view of an individual human eye is 95 away from the nose, 75 downward, 60 toward the nose, and 60 upward, allowing humans to have an almost 180-degree forward-facing horizontal field of view. With eyeball rotation of about 90 (head rotation excluded, peripheral vision included), horizontal field of view is as high as 270. About 12–15 temporal and 1.5 below the horizontal is the optic nerve or blind spot which is roughly 7.5 high and 5.5 wide.
So just send the weapon maker to enemy territory to build/make it there. Even if he makes a mistake and kills himself, there's a chance his corpse will infect the surroundings.
Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter/kickstarter.