While I can agree that smoking pot is theoretically no different then having a drink (if not better according to some), there is one difference right now. It's illegal. If it should be or not is certainly up for debate (and it should not be), but what is not up for debate is that it is currently illegal.
Taking part in illegal activities is most certainly "dubious". Risking all that one risks to get high off an illegal substance certainly calls ones decision making skills into question.
However, I don't think a lot of people fully understand the negative side of placing your life online for all to see. They fail to realize that placing their discussion about smoking pot (or other dubious activity) on twitter might one day cause them a job.
Not sure of the validity of this site, but they go no to say that to make an impact it would have to be done on a very large scale (Land mass of Spain every year).
You did not explicitly state that you know there are no Deities. However, my initial post was asking for proof of the statement, "I know that there's no intelligent motive behind evolution". You replying to my comment, I assumed that you were replying to my comment.
As for "the existence of a deity is extremely improbable", I agree. However, that does not justify one to say, "I know that there's no intelligent motive behind evolution", because you don't know. You have a justifiable reason to believe such is true, but you don't know.
While I agree with your statement, I do not believe that it counts towards proof.
You could say, "It's believed that..." or "It's suggested that", but not "I know that there's no" because you don't. To make that statement, one has to make a leap of faith. Is that really the path one wants to go down?
You can make it do things. But how do you know it was no designed that way. I can control and manipulate my computer and I can make my computer to unintended things, but it was certainly designed by someone.
I was just trying to point out hat proof does not exist to say ID is untrue. Sure, there may be no evidence to suggest it exist either, but that is not proof that it does not exist. Without a way to test the theory, it's best left alone until there is a way to test it. but to say that you know it is wrong is inaccurate.
I don't normally do the "Mod Parent Up" comments, but this really deserves it.
But that's okay, because there's no way Intel would ever pull the trigger. This is just corporate posturing to get a better crosslicensing agreement and a slice of the Foundry's pie. They'll fight it out for a couple more weeks and then a "settlement" will be reached behind some closed doors, probably with the Foundry agreeing not to mint over N non-x86 chips and some cash changing hands in whichever direction.
Sometimes, but sometimes not. Given a set of tools and a problem to salve, I'm sure there will be duplicity in the different ways that they use the toosl to solve the problem. But every so often you do get one person who thinks a little differnt and does it in a unique way.
After they have done it in their unique way, it seems obvious that thigns can be done that way. But they had to think it up first. So sometimes peope lare special and thing would be differnt if they had not been there with thier unique idea.
I understand what you are going after. However, planning a surprise party does not support these claims. These accusations accuse of more then what has been done. That is, unless he plans surprise parties habitually.:-)
I'm certainly no lawyer, but it seems hard to cause defamation of character if you tell the truth. Of course, the law never actually needs to adhear to common sense.
Slashdot Mirror
While I can agree that smoking pot is theoretically no different then having a drink (if not better according to some), there is one difference right now. It's illegal. If it should be or not is certainly up for debate (and it should not be), but what is not up for debate is that it is currently illegal.
Taking part in illegal activities is most certainly "dubious". Risking all that one risks to get high off an illegal substance certainly calls ones decision making skills into question.
This.
However, I don't think a lot of people fully understand the negative side of placing your life online for all to see. They fail to realize that placing their discussion about smoking pot (or other dubious activity) on twitter might one day cause them a job.
Maybe you don't need to apply so much gas? I'm a speeder. However, I never have this problem in my Chevy Cavalier (Sp?).
As the other poster said, it's relative.
$69 for a brand new car? not at all
$69 for a can of pop (Soda for the retarded), yeah, a bit expensive.
Also,
Not sure of the validity of this site, but they go no to say that to make an impact it would have to be done on a very large scale (Land mass of Spain every year).
http://www.coolantarctica.com/Antarctica%20fact%20file/science/carbon_offsetting_tree_planting.htm
Well, for one, I don't have enough property to do that.
True,
It should be labeled as a more friendly DRM.
Theft has to be prevented somehow. It's about finding an acceptable solution.
You did not explicitly state that you know there are no Deities. However, my initial post was asking for proof of the statement, "I know that there's no intelligent motive behind evolution". You replying to my comment, I assumed that you were replying to my comment.
As for "the existence of a deity is extremely improbable", I agree. However, that does not justify one to say, "I know that there's no intelligent motive behind evolution", because you don't know. You have a justifiable reason to believe such is true, but you don't know.
While I agree with your statement, I do not believe that it counts towards proof.
You could say, "It's believed that..." or "It's suggested that", but not "I know that there's no" because you don't. To make that statement, one has to make a leap of faith. Is that really the path one wants to go down?
You can make it do things. But how do you know it was no designed that way. I can control and manipulate my computer and I can make my computer to unintended things, but it was certainly designed by someone.
I was just trying to point out hat proof does not exist to say ID is untrue. Sure, there may be no evidence to suggest it exist either, but that is not proof that it does not exist. Without a way to test the theory, it's best left alone until there is a way to test it. but to say that you know it is wrong is inaccurate.
That's a pretty bold statement. Any proof better then that of those that say there is?
Apparently you never watch Gilligan's Island. The Prof. would have had email within a week.
Unfortunately, it would have only been able to send messages to Princes in Nigeria, thus not being able to render them help in getting of the island.
That pretty much sums it all up. Grandstanding.
Sometimes, but sometimes not. Given a set of tools and a problem to salve, I'm sure there will be duplicity in the different ways that they use the toosl to solve the problem. But every so often you do get one person who thinks a little differnt and does it in a unique way.
After they have done it in their unique way, it seems obvious that thigns can be done that way. But they had to think it up first. So sometimes peope lare special and thing would be differnt if they had not been there with thier unique idea.
I understand what you are going after. However, planning a surprise party does not support these claims. These accusations accuse of more then what has been done. That is, unless he plans surprise parties habitually. :-)
I'm certainly no lawyer, but it seems hard to cause defamation of character if you tell the truth. Of course, the law never actually needs to adhear to common sense.
Not needed. When a Meme is used at the appropriate time, it received a +1 Funny. When it's not, then it is over looked or receives a -1 over rated.
Why bring Ted Kennedy into this?
Stealing food from the Authors... Tisk Tisk Tisk... Those were obviously four sales that were going to happen that you took away from them.
SPAM is 100% American (and Gross)
If the parents were actually involved in their child's education, they wouldn't be in that situation.
Insert leading/horse/water/drinking quote here.
So,
Take up the fight and personally host the tool kindlepid.py and instructions for it. Or are you just a sheep too?
Executive Order 28253 clearly states that you do have to drink Fizzy Drinks.
So, in your head PvP does not exist?