"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."
-- Robert Heinlein, Time Enough for Love
Can and have done them all, except changing a diaper and dying gallantly. I have no intention of doing the former, but will attempt the latter when it is time to do so.
Oh, and I never butchered a HOG, but I've done a lot of other tasty critters, then cooked em, so that's a two-for-one in my eyes.
nobody ever became a chef, a painter, a racing driver or a deep sea diver by reading a textbook.
I resent that. We divers read a lot of textbooks, encyclopedias (especially medical and physics ones) in order to be able to push the limits and understand what's happening. Anybody who just jumps into the water with a tank of compressed air or, even worse, a tank of compressed oxygen is going to hurt or kill themself eventually.
So I guess what I'm saying is that it's really important to at least learn the fundamental science behind activities like this, especially if you want to become good enough at it to make a good living. Race car drivers should be able to explain WHY the traction changes as the rubber in their tire melts. I will agree that ARTS, such as culinary work or painting, can be self-taught through trial and error, and that this process helps create people who think out-of-the-box, but it's important to note that they will be BETTER if they understand what happens to chemicals when you mix bitter sauces with sweet sauces or why paint dries differently and absorbs differently on different materials. It's extra insight like that that really sets people apart from the crowd, and most people will never figure it out on their own.
Still, even today, I believe Britain has more University graduates per capita than the US, and if higher education targets are reached, will have more University graduates in absolute terms than the US.
I'm sure the Philippines has a higher per capita graduate rate than the US as well, but this does not mean their economy is better off. Imagine if 100% of the society had a bachelor's degree! That'd just mean somebody went through 4 years of school to be a bus driver. Somebody else went through 4 years of school to flip burgers! Even the janitor?! An economy can only support a certain percentage of those education-required jobs. The Philippines is my example of this because education is so cheap, and EVERYBODY goes to college! Their economy can't support it, though, so the flux of graduates just means you need a 2 year degree to work at McDonalds (seriously).
At that point it becomes a drain of the economy, where people are wasting 4-5 out of, say, 45 years of productive life. If everyone went to school for 4 years, that'd be a good 10% drop in productive labor hours per person. That's worthwhile when efficiency is increased by a large enough factor to compensate for the lost time, but it does absolutely nothing for companies hiring bus drivers, babysitters, housekeepers, nannies, welders, scuba instructors, mechanics, air conditioning technicians, PC repair techs, cable installers, tour guides, factory workers, etc.
Basically what I'm saying is that the majority of jobs do NOT require a degree, nor will a degree really help them. Does it matter if the guy fixing your car has a degree in biology or physics? No, but you're going to be paying for it, because pretty soon it'll be a requirement for most jobs. Academic and highly technical jobs require higher education. Most jobs simply require rudimentary training to perform certain tasks, and it's a drain on society to pay for people to get college degrees when they're going to be doing the same crappy jobs and require training to perform those tasks anyways.
We met online, of course, and have been married for almost six years.
Then I think you're missing that although your wife is less nerdy than you, she was, by definition, a bit of a nerd to be online meeting guys over SIX years ago. That's pre-1999, bub.
Perhaps sentence Sony to be run by goverment beaurucrats.
That would be cruel and unusual punishment of the worst kind, my friend. Let me suggest a kinder, gentler alternative: burn them all at the stake, extinguishing the flames with the blood of their children.
"I fear not death. I fear working for the government again"
-Me
That the AG, like basically all state employees, is paid salary. So it doesn't matter how many of what kind of cases he wins, he gets the same amount of money, it's not a contenginecy basis like private lawyers. So ALL the money goes to the state, not just a certian percentage. You don't get rich working as a lawyer for the state.
True, but the state won't see all of it. When Sony pulls out their credit card to pay Texas, it'll cost a good 3% or so. So Visa gets their 3% of $500,000,000,000, but Sony has to pay 12% APR (0% for the first 6 months).
Of course they could decide to use one of those giant checks, so that could cost them a good $80 after printing and shipping costs.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that, inevitably, some of the proceeds from this suit will go to some group other than the state of Texas. And I want a giant check for christmas this year.
What is the state of Texas going to do with 5 million coupons for a free Sony CD?
Explain to Sony that each coupon can be exchanged for either a free Sony CD or $100,000, at the choice of the victim.
5,000,000 coupons * 100,000 bucks a piece. Wow. Even Dr. Evil never asked for $500,000,000,000. Hell, I think that'll cover the war in Iraq AND buy us a few hubble replacements! Keep those rootkits coming, Sony!
The standard for voting is pretty low -- you have to be at least 18, be US citizen, and have a heartbeat. That describes a mountain of idiots.
Actually, New Jersey's state constitution states "No idiot or insane person shall enjoy the right of suffrage." Unfortunately, they haven't developed a mandatory IQ test yet. I intend to implement my own prior to my re-election as President.
Wasn't there a study a few years ago that proved oxygen was bad for us? increased radicals causing cellular breakdown and ageing... As a New Years resolution, try giving that up!!
I know you're joking, but what you're referring to is, indeed, fact. It's referred to as oxygen toxicity, and any skilled scuba diver will be familiar with it.
This is a great site too look for information, but there's always the trusty wikipedia link if you want to read that.
To quote scuba-doc, "The effects of oxygen are increased at depth so that the maximum PO2 in diving is 1.6ATA, and this is achieved at 218 fsw breathing air, 132 fsw breathing 32% O2, and 20 fsw breathing 100% O2. Convulsion at depth in water usually results in drowning or arterial gas embolism and is prevented by not using oxygen breathing with SCUBA and by limiting oxygen exposure with."
So yes, oxygen IS bad for you in excess, but you can't naturally breathe excess oxygen at sea level. You have to compress it, and fill your lungs with that compressed air, in order to get enough oxygen in you to hurt you. It's also possible to be injured by breathing high oxygen concentrations for long periods of time. Patients on enriched oxygen mixes, as well as scuba divers, are susceptible to its effects.
I wonder if such an occurance is covered by their EULA? (873. Explosions and/or fires, including those involving lethal casualties, caused by this device, or any other devices supplied by MicroSoft, are the responsibility of said purchaser. Said purchaser hereby absolves MicroSoft, and its affiliates, from any legal action.)
Hah, you were so shocked by 873 that you never read 874!
874. NDA Purchaser will not make or disclose any statement, comment, or report about this product, or any other devices supplied by MicroSoft, to any party other than MicroSoft without prior written authorization from MicroSoft, inc. or its designated representative.
875. Upon entering this agreement, Purchaser will cease making left turns, and will complete a triple-right-turn maneuver when they desire to turn to the left. MicroSoft is not liable for any damage or disruption this may cause....
It's worse than we ever imagined. And it's all legal. Even if part of it manages to be thrown out in court, paragraph 1, which ALWAYS states something along the lines of "if part of this document is found to be illegal blah blah blah the rest is still valid" will still make sure we're stuck with the rest of the shit. And lawyers wonder why people despise them?
5 minutes is extremely excessive. You're probably brushing away enamel well before you hit the 3 minute mark, but I can't remember where I read the study on that, so I won't claim to know the specifics.
Why would you want the right to bear arms? I'd assume you'd prefer the right to not be shot. I just don't get otherwise sensible seeming Americans on this
The right to bear arms is, fundamentally, the right to self-protection from government, authority, or any other asshole that tries to infringe on any other rights you may have. Even if you could stop CRIMINALS from obtaining firearms, don't you think that they'll just switch to knives, axes, brass knuckles, large wooden stakes, or any other type of weapon that could be used to gain control of, or injure, defenseless, weaker people?
That being said, I could give a damn about having firearms for self defense. I want them in case my government ever gets out of control. I want them so that I can, if the need arises, be part of an armed revolution. And that's a DAMNED patriotic, American thing to say. Eventually it WILL be a necessity, despite our well-written constitution, because eventually some dickwad will gain control of the government. It could be a foreign power, it could be a corrupt politician in a time of war (like Marcos in the Philippines) instituting martial law then refusing to remove it, and it could be a military coup de'tat. I know this sounds loony and paranoid, but you never really know. My money says it'll happen eventually in America. Hopefully it won't in my lifetime but, if it does, I will happily take the risk of imprisonment or death at the hands of a bad regime in order to try to restore a proper government.
I know people are going to chime in about Bush and all of that crap, but I don't think that's nearly as bad as people think. Now, if the man declared himself King Bush II, announced that the 2008 elections were going to postponed indefinitely, etc. you can bet I'd jump on that bandwagon. Even if his actions are criminal (which I doubt), there is a proper constitutional system in place which can still be utilized.
To summarize, some of us aren't scared shitless of being shot. Some of us are scared shitless of being unable to shoot.
Well he said, "And thirdly, WTF is witht he IT janitors comment? Some of us 'IT janitors', have probably more developement experience, and are better qualified than you so call 'developers'".
Didn't you bother to go to his website? I think it's obvious that he's the best developer the east coast has to offer.
Since when generalizations like these get modded up? ... Generalizing on the "East coast", when so many research centers and universities are here, shows your level of inteligence.
I think labs have to use the money or they lose it.
Pretty much the entire US Government is on this system. If they don't use their entire budget, they're likely to have a reduced budget the next year. And they can't carry a balance over from the previous year. The money just goes back to congress for further spending. This highly encourages everyone to spend all of their end-of-year funds in early fall, since the fiscal year ends/begins in october.
Also, the budgets are usually earmarked. So a university might have $600,000 for new computers, $300,000 for furniture, $50,000,000 for salaries, etc. They may be out of money for furniture, and desperately in need of furniture, with $200,000 of computer money left over in the end of september, but they're going to be buying a ton of Dells before the fiscal year ends, otherwise they'll just have their computer budget slashed later.
This is a serious problem, but I haven't found a system that'd actually fix it. If I ever do I'll write it up, pay people to review it, and send it up until it becomes a bill.
But is the issue with religion or with people? Couldn't any mindless group be convinced to do evil? Some prime non-religion based examples I can think of are the Nazis, the Republicans, and Microsoft.
Well, let's see: Nazis - ein folk, ein reich, ein fuhrer (one people, one..empire?, one leader) Republicans - one religion, one viewpoint, one country Microsoft - well, shit, I don't remember this one, but it WAS an official microsoft saying. Something like 'one people, one company, one solution'
and, of course, Christianity: one god, one book, one way [of life]
So how are these different? The Nazis utilized religion just as much as any other faith-based movement. The republicans wouldn't be in power if they hadn't turned politics into a religious issue. Microsoft, well, how can they NOT be a religion? They actually BELIEVE that stuff about innovation, and that requires finely-honed doublethink. Only a religion can produce that kind of skill.
Right, and saying "inshallam" wouldn't make me muslim. But it's a muslim thing to say, and is a pretty damned good indication. A non-christian would have no reason to say this, because they probably wouldn't believe in hell, at least not in the fiery garbage dump hell that christians believe in.
I think you're forgetting that, in your previous post, you were accusing ME of being christian, not the other way around. I'm just saying why I dislike people using the phrase "I hope you burn in hell".
I know I went way off in a rant, and you're not even advocating laws
against tobacco. Please read this as it's also a reply to you, and, I
think, rather informative, but keep in mind it's mainly just me venting
about the laws and restricted freedom that affect me.
What is the value brought by tobacco?
For me? Personal happiness. I ENJOY using tobacco
products, especially after a nice meal or as part of a
celebration. It's also a great source of revenue for the US
government and for a few companies.
The same could be said of theme parks, or pretty much anything that
falls under the "entertainment/leisure" category. Theme parks
are dangerous. Fat people fall out of roller coasters all the
time! Fast food restaurants cause people to be fat.
Why are these things still legal, even though they serve no "purpose"
for society?
Rant:
The answer to that is, in order for society to restrict a person's
right to do something, they should have overwhelming PROOF that
somebody's right to do something will endanger society as we know
it. For this reason people are not now, and never will be,
allowed to produce WMDs or high explosives at home, without proper
government oversight.
So, your next argument is going to be that second hand smoking is BAD
for us. If you dig really, really hard you're going to find
the studies that "prove" this. So I'm going to make it easy
and do it for you. Feel free to read this studies, or even
conduct your own.
Studies on Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS):
The first study to say second hand smoking has negative effects was
"Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer
and Other Disorders", done by the EPA in 1993. The conclusion
stated "Approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths per year among
non-smokers... are estimated to be attributed to ETS (second hand
smoke) in the United States.
I'm sure you've heard that claim before. What you're probably
unfamiliar with is all the bullshit BEHIND that study. This
was brought out by a United States Federal Court Decision by Judge
Osteen, on July 18, 1998. The judge lambasted the EPA saying
"EPA's procedural failure constitutes a violation of the law", "...EPA
'cherry picked its data", and "EPA deviated from acceptable
scientific procedure... to ensure a preordained outcome." The
judge threw the entire study out, and punished the EPA for its
absolutely bullshit study, lack of integrity, and flat-out lies.
I'll provide you with one HARD example. I hope you're
familiar enough with statistics to understand it. The EPA's
study calculated, through flawed logic to begin with, that the odds of
a [non-smoker] dying from lung cancer if you are exposed to second hand
smoke as 12.5 in 1,000,000. The odds of a [non-smoker] dying
from lung cancer if they are NOT exposed to second hand smoke is 10 in
1,000,000. Do you remember how to calculate statistical
significance? I'm sure you'll find, if you do the math, that
such a difference is statistically insignificant.
The OTHER study that is commonly used by the anti-smoking crowd is by
the World Health Organization (WHO). It was titled
"Multicenter Case-Control Study of Exposure to Environmental Tobacco
Smoke and Lung Cancer in Europe" and released in 1998. The
press release, titled "Passive smoking does cause lung cancer, do not
let them fool you", claimed that passive smoking DOES cause lung
cancer. Of course, if you read the actual study, it reads as
follows:
"Conclusions: Our results indicate
no association between childhood exposure to ETS and lung cancer
risk. We did find weak evidence of a dose-response
relationship between risk of lung cancer and exposure to spousal and
workplace ETS. There was no detectable risk after cessation
of cessation of exposure. [J Natl Cancer Inst
1998;90:1440-50]"
There is also another line in there about the fact that the calculated
"increased" risk of lung cancer from second hand smoke exposure is "not
statistically sign
Yeah, but I'm not a christian. I'm saying that "I hope this kind of christian attitude gets you hell on earth, because that's what it deserves". My biggest beef with christians (and nearly all religious groups), is their insistence that they aren't judging people, while simultaneously insisting that they not only deserve to but WILL burn in hell.
This is how I translate "I hope you burn in hell, but I'm not going to do anything against you":
"I think you're pathetic scum, but I'm not judging you. My religion won't allow me to do anything to you on this planet, but you will certainly burn in hell because you are a piece of shit."
Actually, I was ratifying the "but they aren't the people who helped us in that war" argument, and trying to do it in such an obvious and stupid-sounding way that nobody could possibly try to argue it.
My dislike for french culture and cuisine is personal preference. I have quite the educated pallet, and I have my linguistic credentials hanging on the wall. As for the beauty of women, I have very little use for them if I don't think they're physically attractive, don't like the sound of their voice, and can't stand the food they're cooking. Why would I want that? I'm not saying I'd never marry a frenchwoman, I'm just saying it's not my ideal woman. I still don't get your "most people with an ear for language appreciate French" and "people with an educated pallet appreciate French cuisine" statements. They reek of claims that "all intelligent people support _____", which quickly leads to "everyone's stupid!" I eat the local food everywhere I go, and I've been more places than almost everybody I know, so I'd say I have a well-educated pallet. I'm sure most people you know do like french food, though. And I'm sure you're taught from a young age that your language is special, unique, and beautiful, just like everyone else. Few people can actually explain specifics that make their language better. Overall, French is a fairly simple language, and I simply dislike the sound of it. But then again I prefer germanic and austronesian languages.
I wouldn't call having tastes, likes, and dislikes cultural bigotry. A bigot is "one who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ". I'm tolerant to the core. I love other cultures, races, political views, etc. I'm not very tolerant of religions in general, but since I have no religion myself you can't accuse me of being intolerant of religions that vary from my own. It's like calling someone racist because they like blondes, thereby not being attracted to black women. It has nothing to do with my tolerance, or racism, or ignorance of any form. It's all personal preferences, and that whole 'in the eye of the beholder' thing you mentioned. Though I can throw in some "fuck the french" comments, if it makes you feel more justified in calling me a bigot.
Slashdot Mirror
Can and have done them all, except changing a diaper and dying gallantly. I have no intention of doing the former, but will attempt the latter when it is time to do so.
Oh, and I never butchered a HOG, but I've done a lot of other tasty critters, then cooked em, so that's a two-for-one in my eyes.
I resent that. We divers read a lot of textbooks, encyclopedias (especially medical and physics ones) in order to be able to push the limits and understand what's happening. Anybody who just jumps into the water with a tank of compressed air or, even worse, a tank of compressed oxygen is going to hurt or kill themself eventually.
So I guess what I'm saying is that it's really important to at least learn the fundamental science behind activities like this, especially if you want to become good enough at it to make a good living. Race car drivers should be able to explain WHY the traction changes as the rubber in their tire melts. I will agree that ARTS, such as culinary work or painting, can be self-taught through trial and error, and that this process helps create people who think out-of-the-box, but it's important to note that they will be BETTER if they understand what happens to chemicals when you mix bitter sauces with sweet sauces or why paint dries differently and absorbs differently on different materials. It's extra insight like that that really sets people apart from the crowd, and most people will never figure it out on their own.
I'm sure the Philippines has a higher per capita graduate rate than the US as well, but this does not mean their economy is better off. Imagine if 100% of the society had a bachelor's degree! That'd just mean somebody went through 4 years of school to be a bus driver. Somebody else went through 4 years of school to flip burgers! Even the janitor?! An economy can only support a certain percentage of those education-required jobs. The Philippines is my example of this because education is so cheap, and EVERYBODY goes to college! Their economy can't support it, though, so the flux of graduates just means you need a 2 year degree to work at McDonalds (seriously).
At that point it becomes a drain of the economy, where people are wasting 4-5 out of, say, 45 years of productive life. If everyone went to school for 4 years, that'd be a good 10% drop in productive labor hours per person. That's worthwhile when efficiency is increased by a large enough factor to compensate for the lost time, but it does absolutely nothing for companies hiring bus drivers, babysitters, housekeepers, nannies, welders, scuba instructors, mechanics, air conditioning technicians, PC repair techs, cable installers, tour guides, factory workers, etc.
Basically what I'm saying is that the majority of jobs do NOT require a degree, nor will a degree really help them. Does it matter if the guy fixing your car has a degree in biology or physics? No, but you're going to be paying for it, because pretty soon it'll be a requirement for most jobs. Academic and highly technical jobs require higher education. Most jobs simply require rudimentary training to perform certain tasks, and it's a drain on society to pay for people to get college degrees when they're going to be doing the same crappy jobs and require training to perform those tasks anyways.
Then I think you're missing that although your wife is less nerdy than you, she was, by definition, a bit of a nerd to be online meeting guys over SIX years ago. That's pre-1999, bub.
Actually, it's a dead horse now.
That would be cruel and unusual punishment of the worst kind, my friend. Let me suggest a kinder, gentler alternative: burn them all at the stake, extinguishing the flames with the blood of their children.
"I fear not death. I fear working for the government again"
-Me
True, but the state won't see all of it. When Sony pulls out their credit card to pay Texas, it'll cost a good 3% or so. So Visa gets their 3% of $500,000,000,000, but Sony has to pay 12% APR (0% for the first 6 months).
Of course they could decide to use one of those giant checks, so that could cost them a good $80 after printing and shipping costs.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that, inevitably, some of the proceeds from this suit will go to some group other than the state of Texas. And I want a giant check for christmas this year.
5,000,000 coupons * 100,000 bucks a piece. Wow. Even Dr. Evil never asked for $500,000,000,000. Hell, I think that'll cover the war in Iraq AND buy us a few hubble replacements! Keep those rootkits coming, Sony!
Actually, New Jersey's state constitution states "No idiot or insane person shall enjoy the right of suffrage." Unfortunately, they haven't developed a mandatory IQ test yet. I intend to implement my own prior to my re-election as President.
Also, most violent criminals are psychopaths. The threat of death means nothing to a psychopath, so it's a terrible deterrent.
It does work well against the greedy, though.
Simple. Just post to BBspot.
I know you're joking, but what you're referring to is, indeed, fact. It's referred to as oxygen toxicity, and any skilled scuba diver will be familiar with it.
This is a great site too look for information, but there's always the trusty wikipedia link if you want to read that.
To quote scuba-doc, "The effects of oxygen are increased at depth so that the maximum PO2 in diving is 1.6ATA, and this is achieved at 218 fsw breathing air, 132 fsw breathing 32% O2, and 20 fsw breathing 100% O2. Convulsion at depth in water usually results in drowning or arterial gas embolism and is prevented by not using oxygen breathing with SCUBA and by limiting oxygen exposure with."
So yes, oxygen IS bad for you in excess, but you can't naturally breathe excess oxygen at sea level. You have to compress it, and fill your lungs with that compressed air, in order to get enough oxygen in you to hurt you. It's also possible to be injured by breathing high oxygen concentrations for long periods of time. Patients on enriched oxygen mixes, as well as scuba divers, are susceptible to its effects.
Hah, you were so shocked by 873 that you never read 874!
874. NDA Purchaser will not make or disclose any statement, comment, or report about this product, or any other devices supplied by MicroSoft, to any party other than MicroSoft without prior written authorization from MicroSoft, inc. or its designated representative.
875. Upon entering this agreement, Purchaser will cease making left turns, and will complete a triple-right-turn maneuver when they desire to turn to the left. MicroSoft is not liable for any damage or disruption this may cause.
It's worse than we ever imagined. And it's all legal. Even if part of it manages to be thrown out in court, paragraph 1, which ALWAYS states something along the lines of "if part of this document is found to be illegal blah blah blah the rest is still valid" will still make sure we're stuck with the rest of the shit. And lawyers wonder why people despise them?
5 minutes is extremely excessive. You're probably brushing away enamel well before you hit the 3 minute mark, but I can't remember where I read the study on that, so I won't claim to know the specifics.
The right to bear arms is, fundamentally, the right to self-protection from government, authority, or any other asshole that tries to infringe on any other rights you may have. Even if you could stop CRIMINALS from obtaining firearms, don't you think that they'll just switch to knives, axes, brass knuckles, large wooden stakes, or any other type of weapon that could be used to gain control of, or injure, defenseless, weaker people?
That being said, I could give a damn about having firearms for self defense. I want them in case my government ever gets out of control. I want them so that I can, if the need arises, be part of an armed revolution. And that's a DAMNED patriotic, American thing to say. Eventually it WILL be a necessity, despite our well-written constitution, because eventually some dickwad will gain control of the government. It could be a foreign power, it could be a corrupt politician in a time of war (like Marcos in the Philippines) instituting martial law then refusing to remove it, and it could be a military coup de'tat. I know this sounds loony and paranoid, but you never really know. My money says it'll happen eventually in America. Hopefully it won't in my lifetime but, if it does, I will happily take the risk of imprisonment or death at the hands of a bad regime in order to try to restore a proper government.
I know people are going to chime in about Bush and all of that crap, but I don't think that's nearly as bad as people think. Now, if the man declared himself King Bush II, announced that the 2008 elections were going to postponed indefinitely, etc. you can bet I'd jump on that bandwagon. Even if his actions are criminal (which I doubt), there is a proper constitutional system in place which can still be utilized.
To summarize, some of us aren't scared shitless of being shot. Some of us are scared shitless of being unable to shoot.
Well he said, "And thirdly, WTF is witht he IT janitors comment? Some of us 'IT janitors', have probably more developement experience, and are better qualified than you so call 'developers'".
Didn't you bother to go to his website? I think it's obvious that he's the best developer the east coast has to offer.
Grammar? Spelling? You're still employed? Q.E.D.
Pretty much the entire US Government is on this system. If they don't use their entire budget, they're likely to have a reduced budget the next year. And they can't carry a balance over from the previous year. The money just goes back to congress for further spending. This highly encourages everyone to spend all of their end-of-year funds in early fall, since the fiscal year ends/begins in october.
Also, the budgets are usually earmarked. So a university might have $600,000 for new computers, $300,000 for furniture, $50,000,000 for salaries, etc. They may be out of money for furniture, and desperately in need of furniture, with $200,000 of computer money left over in the end of september, but they're going to be buying a ton of Dells before the fiscal year ends, otherwise they'll just have their computer budget slashed later.
This is a serious problem, but I haven't found a system that'd actually fix it. If I ever do I'll write it up, pay people to review it, and send it up until it becomes a bill.
Thank you. I'm certain you're right, and that's exactly what I was looking for.
Brilliant!
Well, let's see:
Nazis - ein folk, ein reich, ein fuhrer (one people, one..empire?, one leader)
Republicans - one religion, one viewpoint, one country
Microsoft - well, shit, I don't remember this one, but it WAS an official microsoft saying. Something like 'one people, one company, one solution'
and, of course, Christianity:
one god, one book, one way [of life]
So how are these different? The Nazis utilized religion just as much as any other faith-based movement. The republicans wouldn't be in power if they hadn't turned politics into a religious issue. Microsoft, well, how can they NOT be a religion? They actually BELIEVE that stuff about innovation, and that requires finely-honed doublethink. Only a religion can produce that kind of skill.
That's because they're not allowed to judge people! So they have to send them to Him so that He can judge the heathen.
Right, and saying "inshallam" wouldn't make me muslim. But it's a muslim thing to say, and is a pretty damned good indication. A non-christian would have no reason to say this, because they probably wouldn't believe in hell, at least not in the fiery garbage dump hell that christians believe in.
I think you're forgetting that, in your previous post, you were accusing ME of being christian, not the other way around. I'm just saying why I dislike people using the phrase "I hope you burn in hell".
For me? Personal happiness. I ENJOY using tobacco products, especially after a nice meal or as part of a celebration. It's also a great source of revenue for the US government and for a few companies.
The same could be said of theme parks, or pretty much anything that falls under the "entertainment/leisure" category. Theme parks are dangerous. Fat people fall out of roller coasters all the time! Fast food restaurants cause people to be fat. Why are these things still legal, even though they serve no "purpose" for society?
Rant:
The answer to that is, in order for society to restrict a person's right to do something, they should have overwhelming PROOF that somebody's right to do something will endanger society as we know it. For this reason people are not now, and never will be, allowed to produce WMDs or high explosives at home, without proper government oversight.
So, your next argument is going to be that second hand smoking is BAD for us. If you dig really, really hard you're going to find the studies that "prove" this. So I'm going to make it easy and do it for you. Feel free to read this studies, or even conduct your own.
Studies on Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS):
The first study to say second hand smoking has negative effects was "Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders", done by the EPA in 1993. The conclusion stated "Approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths per year among non-smokers... are estimated to be attributed to ETS (second hand smoke) in the United States.
I'm sure you've heard that claim before. What you're probably unfamiliar with is all the bullshit BEHIND that study. This was brought out by a United States Federal Court Decision by Judge Osteen, on July 18, 1998. The judge lambasted the EPA saying "EPA's procedural failure constitutes a violation of the law", "...EPA 'cherry picked its data", and "EPA deviated from acceptable scientific procedure... to ensure a preordained outcome." The judge threw the entire study out, and punished the EPA for its absolutely bullshit study, lack of integrity, and flat-out lies.
I'll provide you with one HARD example. I hope you're familiar enough with statistics to understand it. The EPA's study calculated, through flawed logic to begin with, that the odds of a [non-smoker] dying from lung cancer if you are exposed to second hand smoke as 12.5 in 1,000,000. The odds of a [non-smoker] dying from lung cancer if they are NOT exposed to second hand smoke is 10 in 1,000,000. Do you remember how to calculate statistical significance? I'm sure you'll find, if you do the math, that such a difference is statistically insignificant.
The OTHER study that is commonly used by the anti-smoking crowd is by the World Health Organization (WHO). It was titled "Multicenter Case-Control Study of Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Lung Cancer in Europe" and released in 1998. The press release, titled "Passive smoking does cause lung cancer, do not let them fool you", claimed that passive smoking DOES cause lung cancer. Of course, if you read the actual study, it reads as follows:
"Conclusions: Our results indicate no association between childhood exposure to ETS and lung cancer risk. We did find weak evidence of a dose-response relationship between risk of lung cancer and exposure to spousal and workplace ETS. There was no detectable risk after cessation of cessation of exposure. [J Natl Cancer Inst 1998;90:1440-50]"
There is also another line in there about the fact that the calculated "increased" risk of lung cancer from second hand smoke exposure is "not statistically sign
Yeah, but I'm not a christian. I'm saying that "I hope this kind of christian attitude gets you hell on earth, because that's what it deserves". My biggest beef with christians (and nearly all religious groups), is their insistence that they aren't judging people, while simultaneously insisting that they not only deserve to but WILL burn in hell.
This is how I translate "I hope you burn in hell, but I'm not going to do anything against you":
"I think you're pathetic scum, but I'm not judging you. My religion won't allow me to do anything to you on this planet, but you will certainly burn in hell because you are a piece of shit."
Actually, I was ratifying the "but they aren't the people who helped us in that war" argument, and trying to do it in such an obvious and stupid-sounding way that nobody could possibly try to argue it.
My dislike for french culture and cuisine is personal preference. I have quite the educated pallet, and I have my linguistic credentials hanging on the wall. As for the beauty of women, I have very little use for them if I don't think they're physically attractive, don't like the sound of their voice, and can't stand the food they're cooking. Why would I want that? I'm not saying I'd never marry a frenchwoman, I'm just saying it's not my ideal woman. I still don't get your "most people with an ear for language appreciate French" and "people with an educated pallet appreciate French cuisine" statements. They reek of claims that "all intelligent people support _____", which quickly leads to "everyone's stupid!" I eat the local food everywhere I go, and I've been more places than almost everybody I know, so I'd say I have a well-educated pallet. I'm sure most people you know do like french food, though. And I'm sure you're taught from a young age that your language is special, unique, and beautiful, just like everyone else. Few people can actually explain specifics that make their language better. Overall, French is a fairly simple language, and I simply dislike the sound of it. But then again I prefer germanic and austronesian languages.
I wouldn't call having tastes, likes, and dislikes cultural bigotry. A bigot is "one who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ". I'm tolerant to the core. I love other cultures, races, political views, etc. I'm not very tolerant of religions in general, but since I have no religion myself you can't accuse me of being intolerant of religions that vary from my own. It's like calling someone racist because they like blondes, thereby not being attracted to black women. It has nothing to do with my tolerance, or racism, or ignorance of any form. It's all personal preferences, and that whole 'in the eye of the beholder' thing you mentioned. Though I can throw in some "fuck the french" comments, if it makes you feel more justified in calling me a bigot.