You see, generally when you borrow money there's some sort of agreement as to how it's paid back. for example, when you borrow money to pay for college or a car loan the bank doesn't have the right to send someone into your house in the middle of the night to take your wedding tape or private letters. If that happened, you'd be well within your right to shoot that person in your house. Likewise with spies.
Yes, except the target bullet is larger than a person, easily damaged by nearby explosions and is airborne for an extended period of time rather than less then a second. And the kill bullet is large and can make intelligent in-course flight corrections. So really, you might say it's like hitting a missile with a missile. I don't really see that as needing a simplified analogy that overstates the difficulty by enormous factors.
Really? what am I missing here, he seems to genuinely believe this foam could replace airbags which leads me to believe he thinks it can be inflated on the fly rather then being a solid chunk of metal that deforms. I realize that is so insane that I wish it was a joke, but if it was it wasn't made very apparent.
I'm pretty sure the medical expenses associated with car accidents would drop as they'd all be dead, but most people don't drive around assuming an impact that would otherwise cause their face to impact the steering wheel is all fine and dandy because they have an airbag so they might as well plow into that bridge abutment anyways.
Have you ever seen someone inflate regular foam? I'm pretty sure it comes full size when it's made and then you can compress it, but it doesn't inflate up like an airbag.
This is a great argument that clearly has a lot of value for getting things done, lets apply it to everything we do as a country:
You have no credibility wanting hospitals built unless you agree to their construction in your backyard
You have no credibility supporting immigration unless you agree to the immigrants living in your backyard.
You have no credibility supporting the right to abortion unless you agree to the abortions happening and the fetuses disposed in your backyard.
You have no credibility supporting protecting the freedom of speech by letting the KKK meet unless you agree to them meeting in your backyard
You have no credibility supporting the idea of prisons unless you agree to the prisons being built in your backyard.
I don't know what type of backyard you have that you're worried about someone building an entire nuclear waste storage facility in it but you must be one rich motherfucker. Unless of course by backyard you mean some sort of arbitrary distance and if that's the case what exactly is this arbitrary distance and does everyone who has a learned opinion on the storage and handling of nuclear materials have to move within this distance?
In time of war you keep military advancements secrets so they can be used to catch your enemy off guard and destroy them. When strong, appear weak. Draw your enemy in to attack you, and then destroy them. In times of peace, you tout your military strengths to dissuade the enemy from coming at all because you don't want to fight wars. When weak, appear strong. Or when you don't want to fight, appear prepared to.
Just to check, but your suggesting that Germany kick out the ambassador of a country that has full-scale military bases operating inside its borders because 4(?) of their citizens decided to move to said country of their own volition and came up with a legal reason to make said country allow them to remain?
Wait, so the army trains on how to fight with enormously destructive weapons, and how to interrogate and search people efficiently, but now that they're learning how to conduct warfare on some copper and fiber wires you're scared?
You keep using that word, human nature. I don't think it means what you think it means. At no point during the last couple thousand years was cannibalism part of human nature. This is because, like most species, humans naturally realize eating members of their own species is bad for the survival of the species as a whole. That's why often even under circuimstances of starvation, people will die rather then eating another human that is already dead even though it would make logical sense. If something makes logical sense, and people still are violently opposed to it irregardless of their level of education then chances are it's not part of human nature.
Society building, and group dynamics are part of our human nature, eating other people is not. That's not to say there weren't groups that practiced cannibalism, but the key word there is that they practiced it, like one would a religion, and usually it was founded in religious beliefs of the tribe.
Then I don't understand how you can be confused about someone having the ability to self-identify as part of an organized sect. For example, I wouldn't be surprised if someone self-identified as a member of Al-Qaeda. But I would be surprised if they self-identified as a terrorist. I was under the impression that you were confused as to how anyone could possibly self-identify with a term that you believed to be at odds with a person's self image but I think you're instead confused as to how someone can hold certain religious beliefs, which is a different matter entirely.
*sigh* No, you're supposed to read the entire definition I quoted which defines a capitalized Fundamentalist as referring to a specific movement relating to strict literal interpretation of the bible where as the second definition which relates to the more generalized fundamentalist and therefore lower case, simply means adhering strictly to a set of principals. The "profound" meaning I wish you to find is the definition of a proper noun.
So what you really meant to say was that all religious people are crazy. That's fine, I simply misinterpreted your bashing for an honest interest in why anyone might self-identify as a fundamentalist.
As a side note, you should re-read the definition you chose and note the original poster you're replying to chose to capitalize Christian but not 'fundamentalist'. Therefore one would assume he considers himself to adhere strictly to the principals of Christianity, not a member of a movement relating to strict literal interpretation of the entire bible.
1 a often capitalized : a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching b : the beliefs of this movement c : adherence to such beliefs 2 : a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles
Just because fundamentalist has started to have a connotation of terrorist because of the media exposure crazy people get (who of course are always going to believe they are following the fundamentals whether they are or not) doesn't mean all the religious people in the world are going to decide that following the fundamental tenants of their faith is a bad idea. And if they would correctly recognized "Love thy neighbor as thyself" as a fundamental tenant then I'd prefer they were all fundamentalists.
Re:You have it completely right
on
PS3 Hacked?
·
· Score: 1
They do accept that the units will cost them money because they know they'll make up that money in game sales. We pay a lower cost for the actual machine because they expect us to buy games. If everyone bought the machines but no one bought games they'd have to raise the price of the console, probably to the point where it'd be no more attractive to you then a regular computer. It's not like they advertise it as an open platform and I don't think anyone who has ever been to an arcade or owned another console has any expectation of it being so.
Well, I don't know what's up then, mine is pretty spot on as far as who I interact with. My guess is it's more about who comments back and forth and tags each others in pictures and whatnot then profile viewing, but that's doesn't mean profile viewing isn't a part of the equation.
It's probably worth noting that it could only be used from Facebook's internal network. Not that it wasn't still a risk to privacy, but not quite as bad as it sounds at first pass.
Go to the live news feed, scroll to the bottom, and click "edit options" There you will see a "view recommended friends" button in the bottom left. This shows the list of your friends with "best friends" highlighted for you. I assume this list is built off how often you interact with these people, including how often you view their profiles.
This is a falsifiable hypothesis. Does anybody know where Einstein's grave is? I would like to conduct a skeleton rotation experiment.
Einstein's brain was removed for study and his body was cremated and the ashes spread by a river in New Jersey. The skeleton rotation hypothesis is therefore certifiably false.
That game sucks. It's all campers and noob tube launchers, glitching, sprinting, knifing cocksuckers, air strikes, helicopters, FUCKING LAG and the annoyances of its multiplayer matchmaking system.
emphasis mine. So you don't like people who set up in good fire positions and defend an area (camping) and you don't like people who run around (sprinting) because none of that is sporting? I assume what's left then is walking slowly towards you and firing in rank? Are you sure modern warfare is the genre you're interested in?
As an addendum, the correct sides of the coin are Revolutionary/Patriot and Traitor. Revolutionary implies being a traitor from the other viewpoint but neither EVER requires acts of terrorism.
I'm not sure drafting letters to the government asking for change, and then declaring yourself an independent sovereign nation when said olive branch petition is ignored can really be called 'terrorism'. What exactly did the American Revolutionaries do to attempt to install TERROR into the hearts of common British citizens back in England? I mean I know they love their tea, but I think terror at it being wasted is a bit of stretch.
The only thing I can possibly imagine you trying to make an argument for would be the tar and feathering and mob actions leading up to it and during the outbreak of war. But you can hardly compare uncoordinated city mob/rioters in they're own country to a planned terrorism campaign targeting civilian populaces abroad.
If you think revolution is the same as terrorism then you're doing it wrong. At no point does revolution require the targeting of civilians in the hopes of causing as many casualties as possible in order to spread fear and terror.
Because looking a nineteen year old kid in the eye and asking him to go kill and die for his country because some malicious packets got through a routers firewall at a private company and now China might be able build a better search engine is different then asking him to do it because foreigners with guns just landed on the beach where he played as a kid and claimed it as their own. Any more ridiculous questions?
What makes the most sense to you? That Google announces that they lifted censorship while purposely keeping censorship on and just sliding an image or two in hoping the whole thing blows over before anyone notices or that like they say, that it takes a little bit for the ranking system to normalize
I know for a fact I've searched google.cn for Tienanmen square before and there was nothing about the massacre on the first page, and definitely no pictures of tanks, and now there is so I'm likely to believe them at present.
Slashdot Mirror
You see, generally when you borrow money there's some sort of agreement as to how it's paid back. for example, when you borrow money to pay for college or a car loan the bank doesn't have the right to send someone into your house in the middle of the night to take your wedding tape or private letters. If that happened, you'd be well within your right to shoot that person in your house. Likewise with spies.
Yes, except the target bullet is larger than a person, easily damaged by nearby explosions and is airborne for an extended period of time rather than less then a second. And the kill bullet is large and can make intelligent in-course flight corrections. So really, you might say it's like hitting a missile with a missile. I don't really see that as needing a simplified analogy that overstates the difficulty by enormous factors.
People don't generally lean into a bullet, but they do take a proper firing stance, so that's not completely true.
Really? what am I missing here, he seems to genuinely believe this foam could replace airbags which leads me to believe he thinks it can be inflated on the fly rather then being a solid chunk of metal that deforms. I realize that is so insane that I wish it was a joke, but if it was it wasn't made very apparent.
I'm pretty sure the medical expenses associated with car accidents would drop as they'd all be dead, but most people don't drive around assuming an impact that would otherwise cause their face to impact the steering wheel is all fine and dandy because they have an airbag so they might as well plow into that bridge abutment anyways.
Have you ever seen someone inflate regular foam? I'm pretty sure it comes full size when it's made and then you can compress it, but it doesn't inflate up like an airbag.
This is a great argument that clearly has a lot of value for getting things done, lets apply it to everything we do as a country:
I don't know what type of backyard you have that you're worried about someone building an entire nuclear waste storage facility in it but you must be one rich motherfucker. Unless of course by backyard you mean some sort of arbitrary distance and if that's the case what exactly is this arbitrary distance and does everyone who has a learned opinion on the storage and handling of nuclear materials have to move within this distance?
In time of war you keep military advancements secrets so they can be used to catch your enemy off guard and destroy them. When strong, appear weak. Draw your enemy in to attack you, and then destroy them. In times of peace, you tout your military strengths to dissuade the enemy from coming at all because you don't want to fight wars. When weak, appear strong. Or when you don't want to fight, appear prepared to.
Just to check, but your suggesting that Germany kick out the ambassador of a country that has full-scale military bases operating inside its borders because 4(?) of their citizens decided to move to said country of their own volition and came up with a legal reason to make said country allow them to remain?
Wait, so the army trains on how to fight with enormously destructive weapons, and how to interrogate and search people efficiently, but now that they're learning how to conduct warfare on some copper and fiber wires you're scared?
You keep using that word, human nature. I don't think it means what you think it means. At no point during the last couple thousand years was cannibalism part of human nature. This is because, like most species, humans naturally realize eating members of their own species is bad for the survival of the species as a whole. That's why often even under circuimstances of starvation, people will die rather then eating another human that is already dead even though it would make logical sense. If something makes logical sense, and people still are violently opposed to it irregardless of their level of education then chances are it's not part of human nature.
Society building, and group dynamics are part of our human nature, eating other people is not. That's not to say there weren't groups that practiced cannibalism, but the key word there is that they practiced it, like one would a religion, and usually it was founded in religious beliefs of the tribe.
Then I don't understand how you can be confused about someone having the ability to self-identify as part of an organized sect. For example, I wouldn't be surprised if someone self-identified as a member of Al-Qaeda. But I would be surprised if they self-identified as a terrorist. I was under the impression that you were confused as to how anyone could possibly self-identify with a term that you believed to be at odds with a person's self image but I think you're instead confused as to how someone can hold certain religious beliefs, which is a different matter entirely.
*sigh* No, you're supposed to read the entire definition I quoted which defines a capitalized Fundamentalist as referring to a specific movement relating to strict literal interpretation of the bible where as the second definition which relates to the more generalized fundamentalist and therefore lower case, simply means adhering strictly to a set of principals. The "profound" meaning I wish you to find is the definition of a proper noun.
So what you really meant to say was that all religious people are crazy. That's fine, I simply misinterpreted your bashing for an honest interest in why anyone might self-identify as a fundamentalist.
As a side note, you should re-read the definition you chose and note the original poster you're replying to chose to capitalize Christian but not 'fundamentalist'. Therefore one would assume he considers himself to adhere strictly to the principals of Christianity, not a member of a movement relating to strict literal interpretation of the entire bible.
1 a often capitalized : a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching b : the beliefs of this movement c : adherence to such beliefs
2 : a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles
Just because fundamentalist has started to have a connotation of terrorist because of the media exposure crazy people get (who of course are always going to believe they are following the fundamentals whether they are or not) doesn't mean all the religious people in the world are going to decide that following the fundamental tenants of their faith is a bad idea. And if they would correctly recognized "Love thy neighbor as thyself" as a fundamental tenant then I'd prefer they were all fundamentalists.
They do accept that the units will cost them money because they know they'll make up that money in game sales. We pay a lower cost for the actual machine because they expect us to buy games. If everyone bought the machines but no one bought games they'd have to raise the price of the console, probably to the point where it'd be no more attractive to you then a regular computer. It's not like they advertise it as an open platform and I don't think anyone who has ever been to an arcade or owned another console has any expectation of it being so.
Well, I don't know what's up then, mine is pretty spot on as far as who I interact with. My guess is it's more about who comments back and forth and tags each others in pictures and whatnot then profile viewing, but that's doesn't mean profile viewing isn't a part of the equation.
It's probably worth noting that it could only be used from Facebook's internal network. Not that it wasn't still a risk to privacy, but not quite as bad as it sounds at first pass.
Go to the live news feed, scroll to the bottom, and click "edit options" There you will see a "view recommended friends" button in the bottom left. This shows the list of your friends with "best friends" highlighted for you. I assume this list is built off how often you interact with these people, including how often you view their profiles.
This is a falsifiable hypothesis. Does anybody know where Einstein's grave is? I would like to conduct a skeleton rotation experiment.
Einstein's brain was removed for study and his body was cremated and the ashes spread by a river in New Jersey. The skeleton rotation hypothesis is therefore certifiably false.
That game sucks. It's all campers and noob tube launchers, glitching, sprinting, knifing cocksuckers, air strikes, helicopters, FUCKING LAG and the annoyances of its multiplayer matchmaking system.
emphasis mine. So you don't like people who set up in good fire positions and defend an area (camping) and you don't like people who run around (sprinting) because none of that is sporting? I assume what's left then is walking slowly towards you and firing in rank? Are you sure modern warfare is the genre you're interested in?
As an addendum, the correct sides of the coin are Revolutionary/Patriot and Traitor. Revolutionary implies being a traitor from the other viewpoint but neither EVER requires acts of terrorism.
I'm not sure drafting letters to the government asking for change, and then declaring yourself an independent sovereign nation when said olive branch petition is ignored can really be called 'terrorism'. What exactly did the American Revolutionaries do to attempt to install TERROR into the hearts of common British citizens back in England? I mean I know they love their tea, but I think terror at it being wasted is a bit of stretch.
The only thing I can possibly imagine you trying to make an argument for would be the tar and feathering and mob actions leading up to it and during the outbreak of war. But you can hardly compare uncoordinated city mob/rioters in they're own country to a planned terrorism campaign targeting civilian populaces abroad.
If you think revolution is the same as terrorism then you're doing it wrong. At no point does revolution require the targeting of civilians in the hopes of causing as many casualties as possible in order to spread fear and terror.
Because looking a nineteen year old kid in the eye and asking him to go kill and die for his country because some malicious packets got through a routers firewall at a private company and now China might be able build a better search engine is different then asking him to do it because foreigners with guns just landed on the beach where he played as a kid and claimed it as their own. Any more ridiculous questions?
What makes the most sense to you? That Google announces that they lifted censorship while purposely keeping censorship on and just sliding an image or two in hoping the whole thing blows over before anyone notices or that like they say, that it takes a little bit for the ranking system to normalize
I know for a fact I've searched google.cn for Tienanmen square before and there was nothing about the massacre on the first page, and definitely no pictures of tanks, and now there is so I'm likely to believe them at present.