I'm 22, and I've been paying attention to the elections since 1996. I may be unusual in that regard, but I sure as hell hope not. Also, please tell me that you didn't actually vote in the last one, and preserve some of my illusions about the American voting public.
But in response to your question, the last election was pretty similar: Bush was running against Not-Bush, except last time Howard Dean was on hand to scare the living shit out of everyone. And there doesn't seem to have been any Swift Boating that I've heard of.
Where we the United States fall short in scale, it is only through lack of means, not lack of will. For a tip-of-the-iceberg set of examples: Abu Ghraib, the Phillipine-American war, our machinations in Latin America, our overthrow of the government of Iran (and we wonder why they hate us?), internment of Japanese-Americans during the Second World War...I could go on and on, but the point, I believe has been made. To what degree that the world has been affected by the actions of the United States vs. the actions of China, it is to our great credit that we could even consider asking the question of whether we have done more good than evil. As far as evildoers go, probably the only thing that cannot be ascribed to us is institutionalized genocide.
But hey, you didn't even refer to the United States in specific, I see. Add institutionalized genocide back on the list, and shut the fuck up about anything, but anything that non-Western world has done.
There is a wide gulf between that and "do no evil," and Google will be the first to tell you that.
Apple is not very evil. Probably the most you could say is that they are not very innovative, and Steve Jobs gives the impression of being a bit of an ass, unless (I hear) you happen to be standing within ten feet of him.
Also, when using sarcasm, you get extra points for being funny. As far as I can figure, the only really accurate thing in your post was where you said, "Sorry, my bad." Being funny might have made up for it, though.
(IANAL) I don't think that flies. If I print a flyer that has defamatory text on it, and this flyer is brought onto school grounds by a student, then that would not be considered to be equivalent to printing defamatory things on school grounds.
Also, I would consider any school that did not block Myspace to be rather negligent. If any children are viewing Myspace pages during school, then that's the school's problem.
Following that line of thought, if this page was not viewed by any students at school, then this is either an issue for the courts (not an issue for the school disciplinary system) or a non-issue.
Consider that perhaps there are parts of the world that don't have a McDonald's on every corner. Consider further that there may be parts of the world that don't even have basic cable, let alone such frivolities as running water and electricity. People in such a godforsaken place might not have a ready supply of condoms, or perhaps the locals may not feel like using them, for cultural reasons.
So, in the hypothetical case that such places existed, we have three options:
1) Circumcise people to give them at least a half chance of avoiding becoming part of an epidemic.
2) Distribute condoms to people in those areas and try to educate them about their use.
3) Tell people circumcision is bad, insist on condom use, ignore the resulting AIDS epidemic, have another Budweiser.
Option one does not preclude option two. Option number three makes you a complete asshole. Oh, I see you've already chosen an option. Well, have a nice day, asshole.
I am looking into this flywheel idea, as well as a number of alternative energy storage methods. Probably the major point of detraction for a flywheel is that it would tend to stabilize the bicycle and that would not always be desirable, i.e. when turning.
I am also considering that energy storage isn't really all that useful. You're not going to get more energy out of the system than what you put in; the only thing that might be useful for a bike would be regenerative braking. Also, if you start talking about adding a couple solar cells, a fuel cell, or drawing power from a wall outlet, then this could be an idea worth pursuing. But for this challenge, there's really no point in storing energy at all; it should just go straight to the wheels.
I am 100% down with supplemental energy for my bike, though. Biking is fun, but longcommute is loooooong...
I didn't think anything I wrote was actually funny.
It was a struggle to write anything that came across as ironic and not hopelessly disillusioned and cynical. The idea that people have found my post to be funny has instilled me with a sense of "you're all a bunch of sick cynical bastards." I'm going to go cry into my special Election Pillow (stuffed with non voter verifiable ballots) now--I hope you mods are happy.
Apparently there is only one religion in the world, because people who don't like christian dating sites must be atheist. All other religions or spiritual philosophies must therefore be the products of a deranged imagination.
Our user is an atheist who hates god, which is a lovely contradiction.
Continuing further, we have a neologism! I don't know what an "evolutionist" is, but it sounds like perhaps they work in the evolution industry?
Selfish, anti-social, cynical, hates kids, kicks puppies, plays computer games in basement 14 hours/day..... Looking for pr0n models
If you're on slashdot and posting this, I think you just smashed a lot of glass walls in your proverbial house. But seriously, who isn't looking for pr0n models?
People without Biblical values happen to be the majority of the married population of the planet. What's funny is that most modern-day christians fall into that category.
eHarmony is for serious relationships
This guy deserves to be captioned and turned into--what would that be, an lolpost?
Angry eHarmony Guy is angry!
I are Serius relationships guy, this are sireus relationships site
Occam's razor is equivalent to the principle of parsimony, which is basically saying "don't add green polka dotted aliens to your theory if you don't have to." That is, unless that is the simplest way to explain observations.
It does not say the simplest answer is always best, that is a misconception. God is not actually a simple concept, and supernatural entities are most certainly a violation of the principle of parsimony.
Basically, if we have two theories,
1) X happens because Y
2) X happens because Y, and pink elephants are involved somehow.
If theory #1 explains all of our observations, then Occam's Razor/parsimony tells us that the first theory is probably sufficient. That could change, if we had other observations that were unexplainable by theory #1 and that theory #2 explained better, in which case theory #2 would be the simplest explanation that explained the observations.
It's really not worth getting all that upset about.
I had typed a rather long reply about the energy requirements (which would be well into the petajoule range by my estimates), and was working on the reasons why it wouldn't work in terms of chemistry and quantum physics, but decided that the original post was simply not worth the time to try to correct; to try to substitute a slashdot post for a high school education would be an exercise in futility.
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)
Slashdot Mirror
OT, but thanks for the link. I was hoping that Haida referred to the indigenous people, and I was not disappointed.
Dear god, that's a funny idea. I might actually do that, the game doesn't cost that much.
You are entirely correct sir, and I should have remembered that.
I'm 22, and I've been paying attention to the elections since 1996. I may be unusual in that regard, but I sure as hell hope not. Also, please tell me that you didn't actually vote in the last one, and preserve some of my illusions about the American voting public.
But in response to your question, the last election was pretty similar: Bush was running against Not-Bush, except last time Howard Dean was on hand to scare the living shit out of everyone. And there doesn't seem to have been any Swift Boating that I've heard of.
Where we the United States fall short in scale, it is only through lack of means, not lack of will. For a tip-of-the-iceberg set of examples: Abu Ghraib, the Phillipine-American war, our machinations in Latin America, our overthrow of the government of Iran (and we wonder why they hate us?), internment of Japanese-Americans during the Second World War...I could go on and on, but the point, I believe has been made. To what degree that the world has been affected by the actions of the United States vs. the actions of China, it is to our great credit that we could even consider asking the question of whether we have done more good than evil. As far as evildoers go, probably the only thing that cannot be ascribed to us is institutionalized genocide.
But hey, you didn't even refer to the United States in specific, I see. Add institutionalized genocide back on the list, and shut the fuck up about anything, but anything that non-Western world has done.
What does this post have to do with the one you replied to?
...she's trying to browse a web site...
You can't fool me, there are no women on the internets!
Google is "don't be evil."
There is a wide gulf between that and "do no evil," and Google will be the first to tell you that.
Apple is not very evil. Probably the most you could say is that they are not very innovative, and Steve Jobs gives the impression of being a bit of an ass, unless (I hear) you happen to be standing within ten feet of him.
Also, when using sarcasm, you get extra points for being funny. As far as I can figure, the only really accurate thing in your post was where you said, "Sorry, my bad." Being funny might have made up for it, though.
In short, OMGFAIL!
Stalkers like you make twitter look sane and rational.
Thank you, I am going to paste that on my wall. :D
PJ is anon? What's this fluff on Wikipedia, then?
It's not very accurate, and it is not very relevant to the topic at hand. Also, it is rather incendiary.
So the 'troll' mod may be undeserved, but if so only because 'flamebait' might be more accurate.
I see nothing in the constitution limiting any rights to those over the age of 18.
Just a minor and somewhat offtopic quibble: the Constitution lists at least one right not available to minors.
(IANAL) I don't think that flies. If I print a flyer that has defamatory text on it, and this flyer is brought onto school grounds by a student, then that would not be considered to be equivalent to printing defamatory things on school grounds.
Also, I would consider any school that did not block Myspace to be rather negligent. If any children are viewing Myspace pages during school, then that's the school's problem.
Following that line of thought, if this page was not viewed by any students at school, then this is either an issue for the courts (not an issue for the school disciplinary system) or a non-issue.
For religious reasons having nothing to do with the article I linked.
Consider that perhaps there are parts of the world that don't have a McDonald's on every corner. Consider further that there may be parts of the world that don't even have basic cable, let alone such frivolities as running water and electricity. People in such a godforsaken place might not have a ready supply of condoms, or perhaps the locals may not feel like using them, for cultural reasons.
So, in the hypothetical case that such places existed, we have three options:
1) Circumcise people to give them at least a half chance of avoiding becoming part of an epidemic.
2) Distribute condoms to people in those areas and try to educate them about their use.
3) Tell people circumcision is bad, insist on condom use, ignore the resulting AIDS epidemic, have another Budweiser.
Option one does not preclude option two. Option number three makes you a complete asshole. Oh, I see you've already chosen an option. Well, have a nice day, asshole.
Nah, he's probably covered. The statute of limitations runs out on these things fairly quickly.
Your adage is not necessarily a truism.
And it hurts when they vaccinate you with a needle. Boo hoo.
You should read up on why circumcision is sometimes a good thing before denouncing medicine in its entirety.
I am looking into this flywheel idea, as well as a number of alternative energy storage methods. Probably the major point of detraction for a flywheel is that it would tend to stabilize the bicycle and that would not always be desirable, i.e. when turning.
I am also considering that energy storage isn't really all that useful. You're not going to get more energy out of the system than what you put in; the only thing that might be useful for a bike would be regenerative braking. Also, if you start talking about adding a couple solar cells, a fuel cell, or drawing power from a wall outlet, then this could be an idea worth pursuing. But for this challenge, there's really no point in storing energy at all; it should just go straight to the wheels.
I am 100% down with supplemental energy for my bike, though. Biking is fun, but longcommute is loooooong...
I didn't think anything I wrote was actually funny.
It was a struggle to write anything that came across as ironic and not hopelessly disillusioned and cynical. The idea that people have found my post to be funny has instilled me with a sense of "you're all a bunch of sick cynical bastards." I'm going to go cry into my special Election Pillow (stuffed with non voter verifiable ballots) now--I hope you mods are happy.
That makes you a maverick, not a lunatic.
You and a hundred fifty million other people.
Okay, so that was a joke: there aren't a hundred fifty million people that vote in this country.
Clearly not!
You must have clicked his link to reply---why else would anyone be posting as AC?
I love a good troll, this is hilarious.
Apparently there is only one religion in the world, because people who don't like christian dating sites must be atheist. All other religions or spiritual philosophies must therefore be the products of a deranged imagination.
Our user is an atheist who hates god, which is a lovely contradiction.
Continuing further, we have a neologism! I don't know what an "evolutionist" is, but it sounds like perhaps they work in the evolution industry?
Selfish, anti-social, cynical, hates kids, kicks puppies, plays computer games in basement 14 hours/day.....
Looking for pr0n models
If you're on slashdot and posting this, I think you just smashed a lot of glass walls in your proverbial house. But seriously, who isn't looking for pr0n models?
People without Biblical values happen to be the majority of the married population of the planet. What's funny is that most modern-day christians fall into that category.
eHarmony is for serious relationships
This guy deserves to be captioned and turned into--what would that be, an lolpost?
Angry eHarmony Guy is angry!
I are Serius relationships guy, this are sireus relationships site
Occam's razor is equivalent to the principle of parsimony, which is basically saying "don't add green polka dotted aliens to your theory if you don't have to." That is, unless that is the simplest way to explain observations.
It does not say the simplest answer is always best, that is a misconception. God is not actually a simple concept, and supernatural entities are most certainly a violation of the principle of parsimony.
Basically, if we have two theories,
1) X happens because Y
2) X happens because Y, and pink elephants are involved somehow.
If theory #1 explains all of our observations, then Occam's Razor/parsimony tells us that the first theory is probably sufficient. That could change, if we had other observations that were unexplainable by theory #1 and that theory #2 explained better, in which case theory #2 would be the simplest explanation that explained the observations.
It's really not worth getting all that upset about.
I had typed a rather long reply about the energy requirements (which would be well into the petajoule range by my estimates), and was working on the reasons why it wouldn't work in terms of chemistry and quantum physics, but decided that the original post was simply not worth the time to try to correct; to try to substitute a slashdot post for a high school education would be an exercise in futility.
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."
-- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)
The poster is suffering from a similar confusion.