I think you are saying science assumes we live in an ordered world. This happens because of this. Religion must also assume this. Although circular, science has also shown great evidence we live in an ordered world. Me typing this and hoping you will read it depends on the belief in an ordered world (and that you read replies).
So does that mean you think those without your faith are incapable or forgiving those who wrong them? Is forgivness exclusive to your faith? Did your faith include this theory becuase the leader said so? Is that better than someone who rationally applies reason to come to the idea that forgiveness is the best thing to do? Are either better than those who took faith in the studies that show you can be healthier if you forgive? Your statement has no meaning.
That was my thought... just now, after 15 years, and it was blatent; not just refusal to the consumer/patient, but to the regulators. Not to mention it had nothing to do with the security portion of the bill. The security issues worry me much more than some doctor holding records hostage.
You should check out Nova Science Now on PBS. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/
They had a segment on this last night. I am sure they have an article about it, but what would/. be without indirect sources?
Did you really compare the Inquisition to the A-bomb? You think one of the greatest scientific discoveries (the taming and designed use of nuclear power) is as horrible as a religion killing thousands and thousands for no reason other than "they don't believe what we do"?
Less dogmatic than the "religious"? Less deluded by your own sense of superior knowledge than 19th-century men?
The "White House", I suppose meaning some members of or an official position of the Obama administration, can want whatever the fuck it wants. I don't agree with the extension, but what the GP meant was he wants the guys in Congress, with the power to pass laws and change the direction of the country, to fucking do so!
So no, your quip doesn't mean a thing. It doesn't mean Democrats are sitting on their ass not improving the situation. It means they had a position on a subject, and that's about it.
Go post it on FoxNews and you'll probably get a ton of "likes" or whatever their comment system uses.
It's never an official policy... usually peer-pressure is the driving force behind the culture of "OMG, you work for Rockstar and bought a Monster!!11".
Did you guys see that! He pointed out two micro-brews in a single post and called American lagers urine! This guy is one original and interesting fellow! He also adds much to the discussion!
You are biased, and far too emotionally attached. You should not be making decisions on this issue.
I think most people realize that prisoners have a need to contact *some* people on the outside. Much better than unregulated cell phone use, is to only let them use the internal phone system that can be easily tracked. The real issues cited by the article are issues where the inmates are doing things they shouldn't be doing on the phone; not simply wanting to hear their daughter's voice (remember, they didn't all kill your daughter, or anyone).
Your solution to "fuck'em over" simply adds to the desire to find some alternative method to accomplish a rather innocent task of talking to one's kid. This also means those that want to use that service for something not-so-innocent, have a much better change of succeeding.
Now do you see how your anger and emotions do nothing but exacerbate the problem.
PS. Prisoners already have free cable and health care.
Monoco isn't even a square mile, so to say that they have a population density of x per square mile is misleading. Also that changes a whole lot about how the city is run... I imagine it is much easier to police a square mile than to police a few thousand.
Well the article, that you quoted, is rife with contradicting lines, but nowhere did I see any mention of any device that wasn't a phone. So how is it that you can lump all the non-phone iOS stuff, and then claim that's apples to apples?
I see, so you think it's OK to limit someone's freedoms because they have more wealth than you?
Yep, that's what a society is. Always has been, always will be. Society is for the schumck that can't afford security guards, but can obey laws, contribute, and live better than a peasant. Society is for the middle class, and if you don't like it go start your own country, or move to the Mexican side of the border, that's close enough to lawlessness.
Except that in that little town, you have to drive past my house to see my status. You have to spend a few hours BSing with locals to find out the gossip. It takes WORK to invade privacy. That work has been reduced thanks to the same technology that has reduced the work of communication and interacting with others.
A city gives privacy through a type of anonymity. A rural town give privacy through difficutly to obtain and spread information and the difficulty in retaining said information with accuracy for long periods. Privacy has always existed. Society has continually reduced privacy.
I am getting way OT, but I'm looking at the percentage of gays and the percentage of blind people, noticing they are the same and getting a kick out of it.
I don't have any thing against blind people, but for about 3% of the population, we spend a decent amount to make your life better. There are even special noise making (annoying) cross walks. Conversly, we spend a hell of a lot of money to put down gays. Laws against sodomy and gay marriage. Laws like "don't ask, don't tell" which is a logical ban on gays. And much more.
So while you moan about being forgotten, remember there are just as many people that are remembered and oppressed. While you complain about how the "private sector" can rip you off, remember there are just as many people that are denied basic human rights that the private sector can't suppliment.
Hurray for blind people. I am glad our society finally realized blindness wasn't a symptom of the Devil and has decided to help those with a disability; if only we can get half of that for gays.
That's the whole point. Why does the 200MB plan cost $15, if an additional 1.8 gigs only costs another $10. At that scale of economies, they really should just offer unlimited plans.
So what's the deal? 200mb is enough for people that don't use the web much. But anyone that does daily work on their phone would nearly have to get the 2gb plan for fear of going over and getting gouged. This really is price gouging.
I really wonder if it would be so bad. Instead of people putting hundreds of thousands of dollars into the banks of faceless corporations to get back a few percent, maybe they would try to actually make money with that money themselves. You know... start a business, hire a few employees. Why do they get what amounts to immunity for making money off evil just because they are only a small percentage of the pie, or because they had "good faith" (aka did no research)?
Just seems like a big lack of responsibility and accountability. To make this political, then why does Glenn Beck give a shit about "where the money comes from" so much? Why do New Yorkers care where the money for a mosque comes from? The people investing have no accountability, right?
the company likely paid out all of its money to employees and/or stockholders. And you can't really sue them.
Can we get this changed? I understand not being able to sue an employee that was just doing a job, but "stockholders" are owners of a company. They benefit when it makes money and suffer when it loses money. Why don't they also benefit (as in no intervention) when it does so legally, and suffer (through jail or fines) when it does so illegally?
What I read it as is that you will never hear anything from a government scientist that doesn't support the government agenda
if the current government's agenda had that as item number one
*CURRENT* being the key word. "The Government" has no agenda. It is a group of people intended to lay down and enforce some common rules; not a dictator. If you can't convince your countrymen that the government is going the wrong direction, and get them to vote it a different way, maybe you are the one in the wrong.
The fundamental problem with this philosophy is that 50% of voters are dumber than average (median).
If your point of view has numerous religious fanatics who claim to speak for everyone else, it becomes a religion. If you don't distance yourself from the nutters because they claim to be part of your group, then it becomes your religion.
So then Muslims really, really need to denounce the Koran, and quit building that damned mosque!
That said, I'm a Zen Gnostic Episcopalian myself. I want to distance myself right now from the WBC, the people who don't want a mosque within 2,000 miles of ground zero, and really, anyone who thinks God wants you to hate for Him.
Wait, what! Your first statement directly contrasts your ability to recognize that only extremist are bombing buildings, and that most Muslims are peaceful. It seems that you are the one with bigotry in mind; any religion can be excused, but any anti-religious group must be perfectly pure to criticize you!
Slashdot Mirror
There's a wiki for that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights
I think you are saying science assumes we live in an ordered world. This happens because of this. Religion must also assume this. Although circular, science has also shown great evidence we live in an ordered world. Me typing this and hoping you will read it depends on the belief in an ordered world (and that you read replies).
So does that mean you think those without your faith are incapable or forgiving those who wrong them? Is forgivness exclusive to your faith? Did your faith include this theory becuase the leader said so? Is that better than someone who rationally applies reason to come to the idea that forgiveness is the best thing to do? Are either better than those who took faith in the studies that show you can be healthier if you forgive? Your statement has no meaning.
MOD UP!!!!
Readers' Choice: Apple Inc.
Oh and just in case you try to say it isn't skewed, let me quote another section:
CATEGORY: NETWORK ROUTERS Readers' Choice: Apple Inc.
Yeah, that "objective" data is really impressive.
That was my thought... just now, after 15 years, and it was blatent; not just refusal to the consumer/patient, but to the regulators. Not to mention it had nothing to do with the security portion of the bill. The security issues worry me much more than some doctor holding records hostage.
You should check out Nova Science Now on PBS. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/ They had a segment on this last night. I am sure they have an article about it, but what would /. be without indirect sources?
Yep... here it is.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/earthquake-detection.html
You should check out Nova Science Now on PBS. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/
/. be without indirect sources?
They had a segment on this last night. I am sure they have an article about it, but what would
Less dogmatic than the "religious"? Less deluded by your own sense of superior knowledge than 19th-century men?
Yes, and less of both than you, for sure.
The "White House", I suppose meaning some members of or an official position of the Obama administration, can want whatever the fuck it wants. I don't agree with the extension, but what the GP meant was he wants the guys in Congress, with the power to pass laws and change the direction of the country, to fucking do so!
So no, your quip doesn't mean a thing. It doesn't mean Democrats are sitting on their ass not improving the situation. It means they had a position on a subject, and that's about it.
Go post it on FoxNews and you'll probably get a ton of "likes" or whatever their comment system uses.
It's never an official policy... usually peer-pressure is the driving force behind the culture of "OMG, you work for Rockstar and bought a Monster!!11".
Did you guys see that! He pointed out two micro-brews in a single post and called American lagers urine! This guy is one original and interesting fellow! He also adds much to the discussion!
You are biased, and far too emotionally attached. You should not be making decisions on this issue.
I think most people realize that prisoners have a need to contact *some* people on the outside. Much better than unregulated cell phone use, is to only let them use the internal phone system that can be easily tracked. The real issues cited by the article are issues where the inmates are doing things they shouldn't be doing on the phone; not simply wanting to hear their daughter's voice (remember, they didn't all kill your daughter, or anyone).
Your solution to "fuck'em over" simply adds to the desire to find some alternative method to accomplish a rather innocent task of talking to one's kid. This also means those that want to use that service for something not-so-innocent, have a much better change of succeeding.
Now do you see how your anger and emotions do nothing but exacerbate the problem.
PS. Prisoners already have free cable and health care.
Monoco isn't even a square mile, so to say that they have a population density of x per square mile is misleading. Also that changes a whole lot about how the city is run... I imagine it is much easier to police a square mile than to police a few thousand.
And the link to the random site instead of the original source is the norm as well.
Well the article, that you quoted, is rife with contradicting lines, but nowhere did I see any mention of any device that wasn't a phone. So how is it that you can lump all the non-phone iOS stuff, and then claim that's apples to apples?
I see, so you think it's OK to limit someone's freedoms because they have more wealth than you?
Yep, that's what a society is. Always has been, always will be. Society is for the schumck that can't afford security guards, but can obey laws, contribute, and live better than a peasant. Society is for the middle class, and if you don't like it go start your own country, or move to the Mexican side of the border, that's close enough to lawlessness.
Except that in that little town, you have to drive past my house to see my status. You have to spend a few hours BSing with locals to find out the gossip. It takes WORK to invade privacy. That work has been reduced thanks to the same technology that has reduced the work of communication and interacting with others.
A city gives privacy through a type of anonymity. A rural town give privacy through difficutly to obtain and spread information and the difficulty in retaining said information with accuracy for long periods. Privacy has always existed. Society has continually reduced privacy.
I am getting way OT, but I'm looking at the percentage of gays and the percentage of blind people, noticing they are the same and getting a kick out of it.
I don't have any thing against blind people, but for about 3% of the population, we spend a decent amount to make your life better. There are even special noise making (annoying) cross walks. Conversly, we spend a hell of a lot of money to put down gays. Laws against sodomy and gay marriage. Laws like "don't ask, don't tell" which is a logical ban on gays. And much more.
So while you moan about being forgotten, remember there are just as many people that are remembered and oppressed. While you complain about how the "private sector" can rip you off, remember there are just as many people that are denied basic human rights that the private sector can't suppliment.
Hurray for blind people. I am glad our society finally realized blindness wasn't a symptom of the Devil and has decided to help those with a disability; if only we can get half of that for gays.
That's the whole point. Why does the 200MB plan cost $15, if an additional 1.8 gigs only costs another $10. At that scale of economies, they really should just offer unlimited plans.
So what's the deal? 200mb is enough for people that don't use the web much. But anyone that does daily work on their phone would nearly have to get the 2gb plan for fear of going over and getting gouged. This really is price gouging.
I really wonder if it would be so bad. Instead of people putting hundreds of thousands of dollars into the banks of faceless corporations to get back a few percent, maybe they would try to actually make money with that money themselves. You know... start a business, hire a few employees. Why do they get what amounts to immunity for making money off evil just because they are only a small percentage of the pie, or because they had "good faith" (aka did no research)?
Just seems like a big lack of responsibility and accountability. To make this political, then why does Glenn Beck give a shit about "where the money comes from" so much? Why do New Yorkers care where the money for a mosque comes from? The people investing have no accountability, right?
the company likely paid out all of its money to employees and/or stockholders. And you can't really sue them.
Can we get this changed? I understand not being able to sue an employee that was just doing a job, but "stockholders" are owners of a company. They benefit when it makes money and suffer when it loses money. Why don't they also benefit (as in no intervention) when it does so legally, and suffer (through jail or fines) when it does so illegally?
What I read it as is that you will never hear anything from a government scientist that doesn't support the government agenda
if the current government's agenda had that as item number one
*CURRENT* being the key word. "The Government" has no agenda. It is a group of people intended to lay down and enforce some common rules; not a dictator. If you can't convince your countrymen that the government is going the wrong direction, and get them to vote it a different way, maybe you are the one in the wrong.
The fundamental problem with this philosophy is that 50% of voters are dumber than average (median).
Where's the "back to 4chan" mod?
If your point of view has numerous religious fanatics who claim to speak for everyone else, it becomes a religion. If you don't distance yourself from the nutters because they claim to be part of your group, then it becomes your religion.
So then Muslims really, really need to denounce the Koran, and quit building that damned mosque!
That said, I'm a Zen Gnostic Episcopalian myself. I want to distance myself right now from the WBC, the people who don't want a mosque within 2,000 miles of ground zero, and really, anyone who thinks God wants you to hate for Him.
Wait, what! Your first statement directly contrasts your ability to recognize that only extremist are bombing buildings, and that most Muslims are peaceful. It seems that you are the one with bigotry in mind; any religion can be excused, but any anti-religious group must be perfectly pure to criticize you!