Speak for yourself. Most of us have real accomplishments to be proud of, rather than some vague nationalistic nonsense over which we have no real control. And as anyone with friends and family on both sides of the border will tell you, you're not that different from Americans, anyway.
The comment wasn't funny, but that's because it was unoriginal, not because it was insulting.
The champions of today can afford to be beat by some pimply faced guy from the internet, if they're smart, as long as they win most of the time, only wager what they can afford to lost on a particular game, and pull-out when they recognize that the pimply-faced kid is better than them.
Owning stock doesn't have to be the same as playing the stock market. You know that, right? Each stock is, in fact, a fractional ownership in the company and companies rely on the capital that comes in from selling shares. Of course there are speculators and day traders who are mostly just gamblers, but without the stock market we would be without many of the companies we take for granted today.
Have you ever played poker? With the right people, poker is fun. A movie costs 10$ and lasts 1.5 hours, and may or may not be fun. I can play a 5$ poker game with friends that lasts twice that long, is more entertaining than most movies and that allows for actual interaction between people, rather than staring at a screen. I could blow 50$ or more at the bar, or I could play poker all night for 20$ and not wake up smelling of smoke and beer.
Playing poker because you think it will make you rich is probably retarded, playing at a casino is certainly reckless if you aren't an elite player, but playing poker doesn't in and of itself indicate naivety or stupidity. It's just a different form of entertainment and is reasonably priced as long as you're reasonable about it.
In other words, if you aren't willing to learn the differences, then those differences either don't exist or don't matter in any context.
The GGP claimed that Fox News reflects the views of modern christians because it's popular with said modern christians. The GP pointed out that fundamentalist christians in the US are at odds with the majority of the world's christian population, and that Fox is popular to a small subset of christians. So, claiming that if Fox says it it must represent Christianity is untrue.
Someone being a monotheist with... as you described has nothing to do with what they think about video games, WMD's or whatever else gets talked about on Fox.
I listen mostly to CDs I bought before deciding I wanted nothing to do with media companies who were pissing me off. Outside of that, radio and Jamendo keep me covered.
So it's true that I'm not paying artists, but that isn't ripping them off anymore than I'm ripping off IKEA by using the furniture I already have.
I, for one, have no interest in paying an artist that signs an abusive contract with a record company, and I'm happy to not listen to their music, so I don't care if they get paid at all. I was responding to the post implying that buying CDs is the same as paying artists, which I don't think it is.
1. Paying major media companies != Paying artists 2. Going after individual infringers != Throwing out lawsuits at random in the hope of settlements and the occasional success
They have the verdict, but not necessarily the financial amount. Unless she uploaded 200000$ worth of music to MediaSentry, she'll be doing much better even if she is found guilty the second time around.
Something magical* does happen in the nano range that doesn't happen in the micro and pico range, where nano range is 10 to 100 nanometers, as it is generally agreed to be. That is that, at least in terms of materials being made, there is a very high ratio of surface area or grain boundary to volume, depending on if we're dealing with nano-structured materials or nano-sized powders. This leads to different energy profiles through the material and a host of unique properties as compared to materials with larger grain sizes. In micro-sized materials, this doesn't happen, and lower than about 10 nanometers is too small to create grains.
For the record; my spell-checker is underlining nano. Apparently Firefox is behind the times.
Is it really that hard, though, to require bills to define a scope when they're first introduced, and then allow amendments that remove or change elements within that scope but do not allow to add anything outside that scope? I realize that would still be a soft rule, but I imagine it would make legislation at least readable.
I'd just like to step in here in defense of cowboy hats. Cowboy hats are awesome, period. You can disagree with someone all you want, but don't ever bash his hat.
I've never understood why they do this on stopovers. I had the same thing where we had to unload our bags, be searched and registered, then get back on the same plane, which had been refueled. Very annoying, and spending two hours doing this makes a long flight even less bearable.
This isn't a failing of the education system, there are actual disagreements about the names of the continents. I've been told off by a Columbian for referring to South America since they're taught that there is one continent called America and that the North and South are different regions, not different continents.
I only scanned the article, but I don't understand how US pseudo-cops seizing US computers and servers is going to stop foreign copyright infringement. Unless these are somehow international cops, but I doubt that.
I would have to say betting against yourself based on the colour of the guy's skin is not necessarily racist, but it is pretty dumb. If you have nothing to go by than a picture of the guy and you need to bet money on the game, then maybe you need to make your decision based on him being black, but in reality, just talking to him you can get cues about how confident he is that he'll beat you (i.e. is he any good?), by watching him walk and move you can see how coordinated he is, etc. By the time you are prepared to bet money on the game, you should have enough evidence to judge his ability by that his skin colour doesn't matter.
If he's nervous and clumsy while you're an experienced player, but you bet on him because he's black, you are showing that you aren't able to get over the fact that he's black when dealing with him. Whether that's racist, I don't know.
You misunderstood where people are disagreeing with your "everyone prefers".
The problem is that you seem to think thufir == everyone. Whether you say "prefers", "has the inherent instinct to prefer" or "wants to prefer but can't because of the media", you're still wrong. Besides the many people on here who have pointed out that they don't prefer people of their own race, there are all the people who aren't members of any identifiable race to begin with but manage to still be humans and therefore fall under the umbrella of "everyone". What you meant to say is that you prefer people of your race and can't fathom that everyone doesn't share your opinion.
"At the least, it means we will be a minority in our own country in short time, at which time we will no longer have any real political power."
No, you will be a minority while the majority will be people whose parents come from different races and are therefore less likely to think and vote as if they're a member of some particular race. The people who will have less political power are those who want to keep their race "pure", and since they're generally considered wingnuts now, it shouldn't be too much of an issue.
Slashdot Mirror
Speak for yourself. Most of us have real accomplishments to be proud of, rather than some vague nationalistic nonsense over which we have no real control. And as anyone with friends and family on both sides of the border will tell you, you're not that different from Americans, anyway.
The comment wasn't funny, but that's because it was unoriginal, not because it was insulting.
Yup. That's how they get people to Guantanamo now that it has a bad rap.
"Get on the plane. It's going to Toronto. It'll be lots of fun."
The champions of today can afford to be beat by some pimply faced guy from the internet, if they're smart, as long as they win most of the time, only wager what they can afford to lost on a particular game, and pull-out when they recognize that the pimply-faced kid is better than them.
Owning stock doesn't have to be the same as playing the stock market. You know that, right? Each stock is, in fact, a fractional ownership in the company and companies rely on the capital that comes in from selling shares. Of course there are speculators and day traders who are mostly just gamblers, but without the stock market we would be without many of the companies we take for granted today.
Have you ever played poker? With the right people, poker is fun. A movie costs 10$ and lasts 1.5 hours, and may or may not be fun. I can play a 5$ poker game with friends that lasts twice that long, is more entertaining than most movies and that allows for actual interaction between people, rather than staring at a screen. I could blow 50$ or more at the bar, or I could play poker all night for 20$ and not wake up smelling of smoke and beer.
Playing poker because you think it will make you rich is probably retarded, playing at a casino is certainly reckless if you aren't an elite player, but playing poker doesn't in and of itself indicate naivety or stupidity. It's just a different form of entertainment and is reasonably priced as long as you're reasonable about it.
In other words, if you aren't willing to learn the differences, then those differences either don't exist or don't matter in any context.
The GGP claimed that Fox News reflects the views of modern christians because it's popular with said modern christians. The GP pointed out that fundamentalist christians in the US are at odds with the majority of the world's christian population, and that Fox is popular to a small subset of christians. So, claiming that if Fox says it it must represent Christianity is untrue.
Someone being a monotheist with... as you described has nothing to do with what they think about video games, WMD's or whatever else gets talked about on Fox.
He was both annoying and publicly unethical. Your point is well-taken, but I can see why he would be disbarred when others aren't.
Thank you.
I listen mostly to CDs I bought before deciding I wanted nothing to do with media companies who were pissing me off. Outside of that, radio and Jamendo keep me covered.
So it's true that I'm not paying artists, but that isn't ripping them off anymore than I'm ripping off IKEA by using the furniture I already have.
I, for one, have no interest in paying an artist that signs an abusive contract with a record company, and I'm happy to not listen to their music, so I don't care if they get paid at all. I was responding to the post implying that buying CDs is the same as paying artists, which I don't think it is.
1. Paying major media companies != Paying artists
2. Going after individual infringers != Throwing out lawsuits at random in the hope of settlements and the occasional success
They have the verdict, but not necessarily the financial amount. Unless she uploaded 200000$ worth of music to MediaSentry, she'll be doing much better even if she is found guilty the second time around.
Or tognu for the vegetarians.
Something magical* does happen in the nano range that doesn't happen in the micro and pico range, where nano range is 10 to 100 nanometers, as it is generally agreed to be. That is that, at least in terms of materials being made, there is a very high ratio of surface area or grain boundary to volume, depending on if we're dealing with nano-structured materials or nano-sized powders. This leads to different energy profiles through the material and a host of unique properties as compared to materials with larger grain sizes. In micro-sized materials, this doesn't happen, and lower than about 10 nanometers is too small to create grains.
For the record; my spell-checker is underlining nano. Apparently Firefox is behind the times.
*for scientifically valid values of magical.
That was very convincing. I just about loost my mind reading that.
Is it really that hard, though, to require bills to define a scope when they're first introduced, and then allow amendments that remove or change elements within that scope but do not allow to add anything outside that scope? I realize that would still be a soft rule, but I imagine it would make legislation at least readable.
I'd just like to step in here in defense of cowboy hats. Cowboy hats are awesome, period. You can disagree with someone all you want, but don't ever bash his hat.
I've never understood why they do this on stopovers. I had the same thing where we had to unload our bags, be searched and registered, then get back on the same plane, which had been refueled. Very annoying, and spending two hours doing this makes a long flight even less bearable.
Because most countries you visit don't assume they'll have to track you down using them by virtue of you being a "foreigner".
This isn't a failing of the education system, there are actual disagreements about the names of the continents. I've been told off by a Columbian for referring to South America since they're taught that there is one continent called America and that the North and South are different regions, not different continents.
I only scanned the article, but I don't understand how US pseudo-cops seizing US computers and servers is going to stop foreign copyright infringement. Unless these are somehow international cops, but I doubt that.
No, I really think that would be about as on topic as we are now. Do tell.
I would have to say betting against yourself based on the colour of the guy's skin is not necessarily racist, but it is pretty dumb. If you have nothing to go by than a picture of the guy and you need to bet money on the game, then maybe you need to make your decision based on him being black, but in reality, just talking to him you can get cues about how confident he is that he'll beat you (i.e. is he any good?), by watching him walk and move you can see how coordinated he is, etc. By the time you are prepared to bet money on the game, you should have enough evidence to judge his ability by that his skin colour doesn't matter.
If he's nervous and clumsy while you're an experienced player, but you bet on him because he's black, you are showing that you aren't able to get over the fact that he's black when dealing with him. Whether that's racist, I don't know.
You misunderstood where people are disagreeing with your "everyone prefers".
The problem is that you seem to think thufir == everyone. Whether you say "prefers", "has the inherent instinct to prefer" or "wants to prefer but can't because of the media", you're still wrong. Besides the many people on here who have pointed out that they don't prefer people of their own race, there are all the people who aren't members of any identifiable race to begin with but manage to still be humans and therefore fall under the umbrella of "everyone". What you meant to say is that you prefer people of your race and can't fathom that everyone doesn't share your opinion.
No matter the colour of the person you make children with, your genes will pass on and your preservation instincts will be satisfied.
"At the least, it means we will be a minority in our own country in short time, at which time we will no longer have any real political power."
No, you will be a minority while the majority will be people whose parents come from different races and are therefore less likely to think and vote as if they're a member of some particular race. The people who will have less political power are those who want to keep their race "pure", and since they're generally considered wingnuts now, it shouldn't be too much of an issue.
Are pack behaviour and tribalism not just two words for the same thing?