Ok.. but it sounds like that is what taz346 is doing. They aren't trying to change the course while they are in it, they want to try and make it better for future students after they've finished with it.
Has it become bad form to want to help out future generations? If you disagree that changing the course is a good thing for future students, that's fine. But that's not the vibe I'm getting from your post. To me, it's coming across as more of a "screw them, you've got yours".
As I understand it, with the coming of Jesus Christ, the old laws (from the Old Testament) were basically thrown out, and new ones were provided by him.
Now I'm hardly a fan of republicans (or democrats for that matter), but I'm afraid I don't see the invert.
If we're talking about health, safety, or environmental regulations, you say that republicans want such regulations dismissed because the regulations are supposedly a waste of tax dollars.
But if we're talking about voting regulations, you say that republicans want proof of actual harm before allowing regulations. Now this is just speculation on my part, but since it would presumably cost tax dollars to implement such regulations, calling them a waste of tax dollars without such proof would again seem to be the reason for them to use. So in both instances, republicans do not want regulations, and are using "it's a waste of tax dollars" as the reason.
Is it really poor attention span that would cause you you to overlook the double word in this sentence?
Because that's what this seems like to me. Only instead of two of the same word in a row, they simply replaced one word with another in a giant sea of words. Though one might be able to make the case that the people taking the questionaire should have picked up on "hey, why am I being asked each question twice?"
Ah, but Mr Shill isn't talking about the 360, he's talking about the third, as-of-yet-unannounced Xbox. Maybe the second capitalized X means something, like we're supposed to ignore the bo* and just focus on the XX. Xtra Xtreme maybe?
"But why don't they just call it the Xbox Xtra Xtreme?"
Because then they'd be calling it the XXX! And the marketing geniuses immediately vetoed that.
*There's gotta be a Body Odor joke in there somewhere, but I can't think of it.
I could see someone doing that, say, by buying 2 years up front, eating their way through it normally, and buying another full years supply every year. Heck, people do it all the time on smaller scales with canned soups, veggies, fruits, etc.
What analogy? All I did was point out that a picture of something is not the same thing as that something. No where did I state that the fact that a picture of a bag of coke is legal means that a CP picture should be legal. Hell, my second paragraph even addresses that perhaps possession of CP pictures should still be illegal in some circumstances.
CP pics you can fap to if you're a sicko, and that's all that matters.
So it doesn't matter at all then that I came into possession of the pics because I walked in on a crime and want to turn in the pics as evidence of that crime?
The problem with your analogies is they are not equivalent. You're not coming into possession of a bag of coke, or a stolen stereo, or an unlicensed firearm. You're coming into possession of a picture of a bag of coke, or a stolen stereo, or an unlicensed firearm. And I'm fairly certain that there is nothing illegal about possessing such pictures.
Now maybe the answer isn't to legalize CP completely. Maybe it's simply to revise under what conditions possession of CP is a chargeable offense. But to say that possession of a physical object is equal to the possession of a recording of a physical object is just wrong.
They're not even just pushing religion into science class anymore. Now they're actually trying to censor information that contradict their dogma. Pathetic.
Indeed. Which makes me wonder, why is whale evolution acceptable but not horse evolution?
while accepting that the textbooks' explanation of the evolution of the horse was too simplistic, the panel said the entry should be revised rather than removed or replaced with a different example, such as the evolution of whales.
I used to hold this belief, until someone pointed out (here) that having "professional juries" is potentially a dangerous thing [...] "well, we all do it so we'll let him off, despite the fact that it caused [z] with the results of [a], [b]. and [c]".
Potentially a dangerous thing, but it doesn't have to be. As long as it is still the plaintiff and defendant selecting the jurors, and not a set of 12 jurors select off a sheet that the court uses to determine who counts as an "expert" in this particular case, I think that would work fine.
Basically, rather than have the current system of randomly selecting a couple hundred people, and the plaintiff and defendant simply yay-ing or nay-ing from that pool, allow them each to recommend, say, 12 people. Then they each get to yay or nay from that pool of 24 people. If you end up with less than 12 afterwards, then you go with the current method to pad the jury back out to 12 (or drop the few who made it entirely and use the current method to select all 12). While not perfect, I can't really see how such a system would be worse than what we have now. I mean, worst case, both sides dismiss all 24 jurors and we're simply right back to the current method, right?
I don't know what you mean by a "class 16", but that $30 card claims to be a class 10, which is the highest class of card. Did you mean UHS Speed Class 1?
I must say, this is the first time I've heard of Belgium used as proof that there is a god. Actually, a quick google of god belgium shows that if there is a god, then god isn't too fond of Belgium.
It just gives you an idea of how much these people stand to save in taxes if Romney is elected that they're putting that much money into getting him elected.
Or that they don't actually understand numbers at all. I thought I remembered hearing that Mitt Romney has spent more money avoiding taxes than if he had just paid those taxes in the first place. Of course, I cannot find a citation for that at this time. Was I misinformed?
how is texting a scam [...] Nobody's forced to do anything at all.
"Hello to you good sir. I am a prince in Nigeria and..."
Just because you enter into an agreement willingly, doesn't mean the thing you entered into wasn't a scam. Of course, that's beside the point of whether or not texting counts as a scam.
For one thing, the on-again, off-again nature of the year-round system makes finding childcare harder.
Why? If for some reason your children are among a minority of students going to a year-round school in the area, I could see it. But if all the schools are doing it, surely the child-care industry in that area would adapt?
Secondly, we haven't seen the academic benefits that were supposed to happen.
Don't have anything to add to this.
And, thirdly, the country is organized around the traditional school calendar -- want to send your kid to a 4-week summer camp? If you're on a year-round schedule, you can't do it.
This was my major concern as well. Not necessarily about a 4 week summer camp (the summer camp would just run for a shorter length), but if everyone let out for the same shorter period of time, it may make it more difficult for all kids who want to do such a thing to be able to do such a thing. But I'm sure people could adapt. For example, maybe neighboring districts wouldn't all let out for the same 2-4 week period at a time. One district's summer break begins the first week in June, another district's break begins the 2nd week, another begins the 3rd week, etc.
I don't know how I feel about a license to use a PC, but lets convert this into a car analogy.
So when you let your idiot boyfriend use your car, and he manages to crash the car into another vehicle, does that mean your license to use a car should be revoked?
Depends. Does the BF have a driver's license? If so, then no. But if he did not, and you knew this, and lent your car to him anyway... it seems reasonable for you to share in the blame.
I've been stabbed before, in a dark alleyway. There was blood everywhere, and a kid crouching behind a trashcan. That kid was our cameraman, and my good friend with the prop knife would probably not be too happy to get a bullet wound for making a crappy amateur movie. Even being caught in the act of stabbing, there can always be an exception.
Funny you should say that, because it demonstrates another important reason to not shoot first and ask questions later that I only realized after I'd posted. Since I've just walked into an unknown situation, it makes sense to give the attacker time to do something to indicate that they are no longer a threat (or never were in the first place). I mean, if someone else saw me draw a firearm, but didn't see the reason, I'd hate to end up shot because they decided to take a "shoot first and ask questions later" approach.
By the way, thanks for explaining what you meant, and I apologize if I sounded a little rude.
Maybe I misread the post, but it looked like cpu6502 was explaining a scenario where they walked in on someone being actively stabbed. Not a pair of people standing off at a distance, not a pair of people with one beginning to advance on the other, not even a pair of people with one beginning to make a first strike. No. It was two people where the one had already gotten off at least one good shank, presumably somewhere in the gut.
That said..
That means first yelling, then approaching
Both of which I do as I am drawing my firearm. I'm not exactly a supershot, so a yell may be the faster way of getting the victim to safety (by causing the attacker to flee) than my trying to aim and fire at the attacker as he is stabbing his victim (I may end up hitting the victim instead, or missing entirely). After all, my first priority is to get the victim to a hospital, not to enact vengeance.
But if the attacker hasn't stopped stabbing by the time I am ready to take my shot, you can be damned sure I'd take it. I wouldn't first mess around with trying to separate the two or disarm the attacker. He's got a fucking knife! I don't know about you, but I ain't exactly stab-proof. So I'm gonna keep my distance from someone who is actively stabbing another person.
And if that makes me a murderer in your eyes, well, all I can say is that I feel sorry for you.
Slashdot Mirror
One thing that really bothers me: neither tablet has a memory card slot.
I'm guessing you're talking about the Nexus 7 and the Kobo Arc, because the new Nooks, just as the old Nooks, have a microSD slot.
I don't even let my dog have a phone.
And I thought humans were the only animal to enslave their own kind.
(Note to others, check poster's name)
get the credits and get over it.
Ok.. but it sounds like that is what taz346 is doing. They aren't trying to change the course while they are in it, they want to try and make it better for future students after they've finished with it.
Has it become bad form to want to help out future generations? If you disagree that changing the course is a good thing for future students, that's fine. But that's not the vibe I'm getting from your post. To me, it's coming across as more of a "screw them, you've got yours".
Why just the new testament BTW?
As I understand it, with the coming of Jesus Christ, the old laws (from the Old Testament) were basically thrown out, and new ones were provided by him.
However, I too am not a Christian.
Perhaps you could present it in the proper context then?
Now I'm hardly a fan of republicans (or democrats for that matter), but I'm afraid I don't see the invert.
If we're talking about health, safety, or environmental regulations, you say that republicans want such regulations dismissed because the regulations are supposedly a waste of tax dollars.
But if we're talking about voting regulations, you say that republicans want proof of actual harm before allowing regulations. Now this is just speculation on my part, but since it would presumably cost tax dollars to implement such regulations, calling them a waste of tax dollars without such proof would again seem to be the reason for them to use. So in both instances, republicans do not want regulations, and are using "it's a waste of tax dollars" as the reason.
If I've misunderstood, then please explain.
Is it really poor attention span that would cause you you to overlook the double word in this sentence?
Because that's what this seems like to me. Only instead of two of the same word in a row, they simply replaced one word with another in a giant sea of words. Though one might be able to make the case that the people taking the questionaire should have picked up on "hey, why am I being asked each question twice?"
I take it you don't accept the claims that lethal injection is actually quite painful.
Ah, but Mr Shill isn't talking about the 360, he's talking about the third, as-of-yet-unannounced Xbox. Maybe the second capitalized X means something, like we're supposed to ignore the bo* and just focus on the XX. Xtra Xtreme maybe?
"But why don't they just call it the Xbox Xtra Xtreme?"
Because then they'd be calling it the XXX! And the marketing geniuses immediately vetoed that.
*There's gotta be a Body Odor joke in there somewhere, but I can't think of it.
and you replace it all every 2 years?
I could see someone doing that, say, by buying 2 years up front, eating their way through it normally, and buying another full years supply every year. Heck, people do it all the time on smaller scales with canned soups, veggies, fruits, etc.
If you allowed free possession of child porn
What part of "maybe the answer isn't to legalize CP completely" did you not understand?
your analogy fails.
What analogy? All I did was point out that a picture of something is not the same thing as that something. No where did I state that the fact that a picture of a bag of coke is legal means that a CP picture should be legal. Hell, my second paragraph even addresses that perhaps possession of CP pictures should still be illegal in some circumstances.
CP pics you can fap to if you're a sicko, and that's all that matters.
So it doesn't matter at all then that I came into possession of the pics because I walked in on a crime and want to turn in the pics as evidence of that crime?
The problem with your analogies is they are not equivalent. You're not coming into possession of a bag of coke, or a stolen stereo, or an unlicensed firearm. You're coming into possession of a picture of a bag of coke, or a stolen stereo, or an unlicensed firearm. And I'm fairly certain that there is nothing illegal about possessing such pictures.
Now maybe the answer isn't to legalize CP completely. Maybe it's simply to revise under what conditions possession of CP is a chargeable offense. But to say that possession of a physical object is equal to the possession of a recording of a physical object is just wrong.
They're not even just pushing religion into science class anymore. Now they're actually trying to censor information that contradict their dogma. Pathetic.
Indeed. Which makes me wonder, why is whale evolution acceptable but not horse evolution?
while accepting that the textbooks' explanation of the evolution of the horse was too simplistic, the panel said the entry should be revised rather than removed or replaced with a different example, such as the evolution of whales.
I used to hold this belief, until someone pointed out (here) that having "professional juries" is potentially a dangerous thing [...] "well, we all do it so we'll let him off, despite the fact that it caused [z] with the results of [a], [b]. and [c]".
Potentially a dangerous thing, but it doesn't have to be. As long as it is still the plaintiff and defendant selecting the jurors, and not a set of 12 jurors select off a sheet that the court uses to determine who counts as an "expert" in this particular case, I think that would work fine.
Basically, rather than have the current system of randomly selecting a couple hundred people, and the plaintiff and defendant simply yay-ing or nay-ing from that pool, allow them each to recommend, say, 12 people. Then they each get to yay or nay from that pool of 24 people. If you end up with less than 12 afterwards, then you go with the current method to pad the jury back out to 12 (or drop the few who made it entirely and use the current method to select all 12). While not perfect, I can't really see how such a system would be worse than what we have now. I mean, worst case, both sides dismiss all 24 jurors and we're simply right back to the current method, right?
And the photos that you took since your last sync?
You are not making that same foolish mistake are you?
I don't know, am I?
I don't know what you mean by a "class 16", but that $30 card claims to be a class 10, which is the highest class of card. Did you mean UHS Speed Class 1?
I must say, this is the first time I've heard of Belgium used as proof that there is a god. Actually, a quick google of god belgium shows that if there is a god, then god isn't too fond of Belgium.
It just gives you an idea of how much these people stand to save in taxes if Romney is elected that they're putting that much money into getting him elected.
Or that they don't actually understand numbers at all. I thought I remembered hearing that Mitt Romney has spent more money avoiding taxes than if he had just paid those taxes in the first place. Of course, I cannot find a citation for that at this time. Was I misinformed?
how is texting a scam [...] Nobody's forced to do anything at all.
"Hello to you good sir. I am a prince in Nigeria and..."
Just because you enter into an agreement willingly, doesn't mean the thing you entered into wasn't a scam. Of course, that's beside the point of whether or not texting counts as a scam.
For one thing, the on-again, off-again nature of the year-round system makes finding childcare harder.
Why? If for some reason your children are among a minority of students going to a year-round school in the area, I could see it. But if all the schools are doing it, surely the child-care industry in that area would adapt?
Secondly, we haven't seen the academic benefits that were supposed to happen.
Don't have anything to add to this.
And, thirdly, the country is organized around the traditional school calendar -- want to send your kid to a 4-week summer camp? If you're on a year-round schedule, you can't do it.
This was my major concern as well. Not necessarily about a 4 week summer camp (the summer camp would just run for a shorter length), but if everyone let out for the same shorter period of time, it may make it more difficult for all kids who want to do such a thing to be able to do such a thing. But I'm sure people could adapt. For example, maybe neighboring districts wouldn't all let out for the same 2-4 week period at a time. One district's summer break begins the first week in June, another district's break begins the 2nd week, another begins the 3rd week, etc.
So when you let your idiot boyfriend use your car, and he manages to crash the car into another vehicle, does that mean your license to use a car should be revoked?
Depends. Does the BF have a driver's license? If so, then no. But if he did not, and you knew this, and lent your car to him anyway... it seems reasonable for you to share in the blame.
I've been stabbed before, in a dark alleyway. There was blood everywhere, and a kid crouching behind a trashcan. That kid was our cameraman, and my good friend with the prop knife would probably not be too happy to get a bullet wound for making a crappy amateur movie. Even being caught in the act of stabbing, there can always be an exception.
Funny you should say that, because it demonstrates another important reason to not shoot first and ask questions later that I only realized after I'd posted. Since I've just walked into an unknown situation, it makes sense to give the attacker time to do something to indicate that they are no longer a threat (or never were in the first place). I mean, if someone else saw me draw a firearm, but didn't see the reason, I'd hate to end up shot because they decided to take a "shoot first and ask questions later" approach.
By the way, thanks for explaining what you meant, and I apologize if I sounded a little rude.
I'd think I would prefer whichever one has the most users. But then I'm hardly qualified to make such a decision, so I could be wrong.
That said..
That means first yelling, then approaching
Both of which I do as I am drawing my firearm. I'm not exactly a supershot, so a yell may be the faster way of getting the victim to safety (by causing the attacker to flee) than my trying to aim and fire at the attacker as he is stabbing his victim (I may end up hitting the victim instead, or missing entirely). After all, my first priority is to get the victim to a hospital, not to enact vengeance.
But if the attacker hasn't stopped stabbing by the time I am ready to take my shot, you can be damned sure I'd take it. I wouldn't first mess around with trying to separate the two or disarm the attacker. He's got a fucking knife! I don't know about you, but I ain't exactly stab-proof. So I'm gonna keep my distance from someone who is actively stabbing another person.
And if that makes me a murderer in your eyes, well, all I can say is that I feel sorry for you.