The "cure" doesn't immediatly kill every cold virus in a person's body. It binds itself to a number of the viruses making it so they're unable to attack cells. However, the all of those viruses are still in the bloodstream, and will still be cleaned out by the person's immune system as foreign particles. That means that the person's immune system will still be trained to defend itself against them.
Nope, everything's made of tiny little strings which exist in oodles of dimension. What they're made of? Nilmop only knows. Don't ask me where I got this from. Probably Scientific American...
One of the major reasons people become more conservative as they grow older is that they no longer have the feeling of 'immortality' of when they were young, when it seemed nothing could hurt them (generalization). It's basically analogous to thinking "If I haven't died yet, what are the chances that I will?" Though we all know this to be false, it often takes some tragedy for it to sink in. However, if new technologies came around that allowed people to continue believing in their own immortality, then they would remain reckless and impulsive (another generalization). This impulsivity of youth, combined with the knowledge needed to make use of it that comes with experience, would cause the race to advance at an incredible pace.
I have a big problem with that crituque. Instead of arguing with the basic concept of libertarianism (basically: a person's rights consist of doing whatever he wants, so long as he doesn't interfere with another person's exercising their rights [example, it's morally wrong for me to kill a person, since that would then prevent them from acting out their will]. Property takes longer to define, but the burden of proof is his, since he's writing the challenging critique) he uses the same "evangelical" techniques in arguing specific points that he attributes to libertarians. If he wanted to make this more effective, he should have detailed why the basis of libertarianism is wrong and worked up from there, building on his own reasoning to counter libertarian arguments. Instead, he comes off as laughing behind the backs of libertarians with fellow conspirators. In short, if you're going to quote a source to back up your argument, make sure it's an effective source.
"since their producer has a conflict of interest which prevents him from making his apps work well on any platform other than his own."
to mean that you're faulting Microsoft for not porting its applications to other operating systems? If I remember correctly, they've ported several big apps to MacOS. If they don't port it to Linux or any other unixish operating system, it's probably because they don't think they'd make money on it. This being the case, not porting to unixen would be a sound business decision, not an anti-competitive attack.
So choosing not to say something is violating other people's right of free speech? Rather, it's a violation of my right of speech to be forced to say what I think. In addition, property of any sort is a basic human right. If I choose not to give the means of making something to someone, I'm not limiting their freedom, since it's mine to do with as I please. That doesn't stop someone from making their own version of the same thing however, which extends to mean that patents are worthless, as they actually do limit people's rights.
The link you put up was to something talking about modem taxes. This isn't a modem tax. This is about treating local calls to an ISP as long distance calls. Maybe you should read the article before calling us all morons, hmm?
Slashdot Mirror
The "cure" doesn't immediatly kill every cold virus in a person's body. It binds itself to a number of the viruses making it so they're unable to attack cells. However, the all of those viruses are still in the bloodstream, and will still be cleaned out by the person's immune system as foreign particles. That means that the person's immune system will still be trained to defend itself against them.
Nope, everything's made of tiny little strings which exist in oodles of dimension. What they're made of? Nilmop only knows.
Don't ask me where I got this from. Probably Scientific American...
Hello sir,
Do you believe that the laws of physics are constant throughout the universe? If so, what could the cause of the differences be?
I'm downloading the ISO from ftp.freebsd.org right this very minute. Finally! :D
One of the major reasons people become more conservative as they grow older is that they no longer have the feeling of 'immortality' of when they were young, when it seemed nothing could hurt them (generalization). It's basically analogous to thinking "If I haven't died yet, what are the chances that I will?" Though we all know this to be false, it often takes some tragedy for it to sink in. However, if new technologies came around that allowed people to continue believing in their own immortality, then they would remain reckless and impulsive (another generalization). This impulsivity of youth, combined with the knowledge needed to make use of it that comes with experience, would cause the race to advance at an incredible pace.
I have a big problem with that crituque. Instead of arguing with the basic concept of libertarianism (basically: a person's rights consist of doing whatever he wants, so long as he doesn't interfere with another person's exercising their rights [example, it's morally wrong for me to kill a person, since that would then prevent them from acting out their will]. Property takes longer to define, but the burden of proof is his, since he's writing the challenging critique) he uses the same "evangelical" techniques in arguing specific points that he attributes to libertarians. If he wanted to make this more effective, he should have detailed why the basis of libertarianism is wrong and worked up from there, building on his own reasoning to counter libertarian arguments. Instead, he comes off as laughing behind the backs of libertarians with fellow conspirators.
In short, if you're going to quote a source to back up your argument, make sure it's an effective source.
Am I correct in reading this:
"since their producer has a conflict of interest which prevents him from making his apps work well on any platform other than his own."
to mean that you're faulting Microsoft for not porting its applications to other operating systems? If I remember correctly, they've ported several big apps to MacOS. If they don't port it to Linux or any other unixish operating system, it's probably because they don't think they'd make money on it. This being the case, not porting to unixen would be a sound business decision, not an anti-competitive attack.
Right, and why would anyone ever need more than 640k of memory?
The application grows to fit the hardware.
Well, of course it is. Haven't you ever read the Illuminatus! Trilogy?
If you don't see the Fnords they can't eat you.
So choosing not to say something is violating other people's right of free speech? Rather, it's a violation of my right of speech to be forced to say what I think.
In addition, property of any sort is a basic human right. If I choose not to give the means of making something to someone, I'm not limiting their freedom, since it's mine to do with as I please. That doesn't stop someone from making their own version of the same thing however, which extends to mean that patents are worthless, as they actually do limit people's rights.
The link you put up was to something talking about modem taxes. This isn't a modem tax. This is about treating local calls to an ISP as long distance calls.
Maybe you should read the article before calling us all morons, hmm?