I find it a bit hard to believe because the format of the show is "we're all stuck on this ship and TOTALLY screwed" and it seems like they're actually WORSE OFF at the end of every episode, but somehow they always barely manage to get through it without losing any of the major characters. The bit where Rush managed to get back onboard after being left on a planet struck me as totally ridiculous, and I'm just waiting for what cockamamie scheme they use to retrieve Telford.
The show is jarring, as it's such a polar opposite of the two earlier shows, but still in the same universe, with appearances from SG-1. The scene where Carter decides to leave behind the two F-302's was weird because you just know that in SG-1 they would have come up with some crazy way to save them and make it out alive because "never leave anyone behind." Whereas in SGU it's "pragmatically, we have to leave these three people behind. [five minutes later] Oh wait, we're still fucked. Oops."
If I'm understanding this right, the deal is that ion engines don't put out much thrust, but use less fuel (and more energy) doing so. So theoretically, if you could cram a large enough fuel supply into the vessel, you could, using constant acceleration until the fuel supply was exhausted, accelerate to a higher speed? Maybe mcg meant that you could accelerate for a longer period?
It doesn't print anything, it just assembles stuff out of blocks. Heck, you even need to feed the blocks in by hand.
This is far from the "build anything you want" that the article claims, as it can only use 5 kinds of Lego blocks, is limited to 12 blocks tall, and can't print blocks so it's limited to whatever blocks you have on hand. Feh: Skynet fail.
Show me some citations and we can talk. Logically it is far more likely that at least one person in the history of the human race has chosen their sexual orientation.
"Love your neighbor as yourself." And "hate the sin, love the sinner," although the latter isn't actually a quote of anywhere that I'm aware of. So no, Jesus wouldn't "tolerate gay-bashing." You clearly haven't studied him either.
Wow, that's some pretty damn circumstantial evidence.
1. John probably referred to himself as "the disciple whom Jesus loved" out of a sense of literary modesty which, let's face it, sounds less pompous than saying "Jesus and I did this, and then Jesus and I went here and did that...", considering how much he kept Peter, James, and him around. And [citation needed] on living together, too? I have yet to hear anything about "as a man lives with his wife" from anywhere other than you. Unless you have some actual evidence (better than some guy pulling the claim straight out of his ass) it sounds like grasping at straws.
2. You think Jesus was gettin' busy with some disciple of his *as he was getting arrested*? Yeah, that makes perfect sense, especially as he was supposed to already know it was going to happen. And if he didn't have a sex life, of course it would be silent on that part. Like I explained before, it's obvious enough that I hardly think it's necessary to explicitly state "Jesus wasn't getting any."
3. In that day they ate reclining around a table. As if you've never leaned close to someone's ear to talk to them.
4. It wasn't just men. If you recall, the Bible makes something of an effort to point out that he was close friends with Mary and Martha. And he had a tendency to heal prostitutes and stuff, which he was often lambasted for.
the Bible pretty much says Jesus was gay, or at least bisexual
lived with one "as a man lives with his wife."
[Citation needed]
Just because he wasn't heterosexual doesn't mean he had to be homosexual or in-between. It would seem to me that, since he was never married and never sinned*, and since Christianity considers homosexuality a sin, he was asexual.
*Never married and never sinned as stated in the Bible. Don't quote the Da Vinci Code at me.
If atheism is true then man is "the chief of the earth". What makes you think (hah) that atheism implies that, or that "the chief of the earth" actually means anything?
If there's no higher authority than whatever animals may be on hand, wouldn't it fall to the most dominant animal to define the rules? Whether anybody actually follows them is another matter, so yes, your last "actually means anything" is true.
If man is "the chief of the earth" then he can abandon absolute standards (i.e., morality). Depending upon content, "absolute standard" implies that it is not possible to abandon the standard or that there are cause-and-effect repercussions for abandoning the standard. In the first case, your statement is trivially false. In the second, man is not special in being able to abandon the standard, and nothing is able to evade cause-and-effect.
I think what he meant might have been "if man is the chief of the earth, there is no reason the standards have to be absolute and he is thus free to abandon them." Or if he didn't, I guess I might as well say it. But I didn't really understand your argument so I dunno, you could very well be right.
If man can abandon the absolute standards then "everything is permissible". Huh? Where does "permission" have a connection to standards?
I'm guessing this is a reference to 1 Corinthians 6:12, " 'Everything is permissible for me'--but not everything is beneficial. 'Everything is permissible for me'--but I will not be mastered by anything,' " which is a quote of somewhere else. The way I understood it is "just because you *can* do something, doesn't mean it's a good idea to." If we interpret his argument this way, then it seems to me to pretty much be a tautology.
If you have better ideas than what I've slopped out here, by all means I'd like to hear them (no sarcasm implied).
I suppose the reason why these lengths (also e.g. intestines) seem so ridiculous is because, in terms of a limit, as diameter approaches zero length approaches infinity.
Thank you, Captain Willfully Missing the Point. I don't know how to make it any simpler:
1. "You're going to say the Bible isn't historically accurate, so here's some evidence that it is."
2. "The Bible isn't historically accurate."
3. "I rest my case..."
4. "I disagree with what you're saying, so I'm going to complain that your argument isn't even comprehensible."
5. [gives up]
"The Bible isn't historically accurate" is a common argument for claiming it's a load of bunk. He was responding to that point before someone made it in this specific instance.
Yay sensationalism. A scratch on your fancy $400 Apple iStatusSymbol is of equal importance to the President of the United States conducting illegal wiretapping? Come on.
Slashdot Mirror
I find it a bit hard to believe because the format of the show is "we're all stuck on this ship and TOTALLY screwed" and it seems like they're actually WORSE OFF at the end of every episode, but somehow they always barely manage to get through it without losing any of the major characters. The bit where Rush managed to get back onboard after being left on a planet struck me as totally ridiculous, and I'm just waiting for what cockamamie scheme they use to retrieve Telford.
The show is jarring, as it's such a polar opposite of the two earlier shows, but still in the same universe, with appearances from SG-1. The scene where Carter decides to leave behind the two F-302's was weird because you just know that in SG-1 they would have come up with some crazy way to save them and make it out alive because "never leave anyone behind." Whereas in SGU it's "pragmatically, we have to leave these three people behind. [five minutes later] Oh wait, we're still fucked. Oops."
Two words: In-box EULA. Eh?
1 +
2 -
3 >
4 [
5 ]
6 .
7 ,
What? Is a space a keyword now?
If I'm understanding this right, the deal is that ion engines don't put out much thrust, but use less fuel (and more energy) doing so. So theoretically, if you could cram a large enough fuel supply into the vessel, you could, using constant acceleration until the fuel supply was exhausted, accelerate to a higher speed? Maybe mcg meant that you could accelerate for a longer period?
It doesn't print anything, it just assembles stuff out of blocks. Heck, you even need to feed the blocks in by hand.
This is far from the "build anything you want" that the article claims, as it can only use 5 kinds of Lego blocks, is limited to 12 blocks tall, and can't print blocks so it's limited to whatever blocks you have on hand. Feh: Skynet fail.
18 months? Why you're even using the words "new version" and "Debian stable" in the same sentence is beyond me.
This is a tautology.
Show me some citations and we can talk. Logically it is far more likely that at least one person in the history of the human race has chosen their sexual orientation.
"Love your neighbor as yourself." And "hate the sin, love the sinner," although the latter isn't actually a quote of anywhere that I'm aware of. So no, Jesus wouldn't "tolerate gay-bashing." You clearly haven't studied him either.
Wow, that's some pretty damn circumstantial evidence.
1. John probably referred to himself as "the disciple whom Jesus loved" out of a sense of literary modesty which, let's face it, sounds less pompous than saying "Jesus and I did this, and then Jesus and I went here and did that...", considering how much he kept Peter, James, and him around. And [citation needed] on living together, too? I have yet to hear anything about "as a man lives with his wife" from anywhere other than you. Unless you have some actual evidence (better than some guy pulling the claim straight out of his ass) it sounds like grasping at straws.
2. You think Jesus was gettin' busy with some disciple of his *as he was getting arrested*? Yeah, that makes perfect sense, especially as he was supposed to already know it was going to happen. And if he didn't have a sex life, of course it would be silent on that part. Like I explained before, it's obvious enough that I hardly think it's necessary to explicitly state "Jesus wasn't getting any."
3. In that day they ate reclining around a table. As if you've never leaned close to someone's ear to talk to them.
4. It wasn't just men. If you recall, the Bible makes something of an effort to point out that he was close friends with Mary and Martha. And he had a tendency to heal prostitutes and stuff, which he was often lambasted for.
the Bible pretty much says Jesus was gay, or at least bisexual
lived with one "as a man lives with his wife."
[Citation needed]
Just because he wasn't heterosexual doesn't mean he had to be homosexual or in-between. It would seem to me that, since he was never married and never sinned*, and since Christianity considers homosexuality a sin, he was asexual.
*Never married and never sinned as stated in the Bible. Don't quote the Da Vinci Code at me.
Abusing homosexuals is not synonymous with disapproving of their lifestyle choice. It's just that unfortunately, the two are often correlated.
A Christian theocracy has little in common with a Muslim theocracy
Please elaborate. Are you referring to differences in doctrine, or execution, or what?
He who is without sin, let him cast the first stone.
"In the beginning, the universe was created. This made a lot of people very angry, and has been widely regarded as a bad idea."
If atheism is true then man is "the chief of the earth". What makes you think (hah) that atheism implies that, or that "the chief of the earth" actually means anything?
If there's no higher authority than whatever animals may be on hand, wouldn't it fall to the most dominant animal to define the rules? Whether anybody actually follows them is another matter, so yes, your last "actually means anything" is true.
If man is "the chief of the earth" then he can abandon absolute standards (i.e., morality). Depending upon content, "absolute standard" implies that it is not possible to abandon the standard or that there are cause-and-effect repercussions for abandoning the standard. In the first case, your statement is trivially false. In the second, man is not special in being able to abandon the standard, and nothing is able to evade cause-and-effect.
I think what he meant might have been "if man is the chief of the earth, there is no reason the standards have to be absolute and he is thus free to abandon them." Or if he didn't, I guess I might as well say it. But I didn't really understand your argument so I dunno, you could very well be right.
If man can abandon the absolute standards then "everything is permissible". Huh? Where does "permission" have a connection to standards?
I'm guessing this is a reference to 1 Corinthians 6:12, " 'Everything is permissible for me'--but not everything is beneficial. 'Everything is permissible for me'--but I will not be mastered by anything,' " which is a quote of somewhere else. The way I understood it is "just because you *can* do something, doesn't mean it's a good idea to." If we interpret his argument this way, then it seems to me to pretty much be a tautology.
If you have better ideas than what I've slopped out here, by all means I'd like to hear them (no sarcasm implied).
If there is a troll, that troll must have had a beginning...
;-)
I suppose the reason why these lengths (also e.g. intestines) seem so ridiculous is because, in terms of a limit, as diameter approaches zero length approaches infinity.
Thank you, Captain Willfully Missing the Point. I don't know how to make it any simpler:
1. "You're going to say the Bible isn't historically accurate, so here's some evidence that it is."
2. "The Bible isn't historically accurate."
3. "I rest my case..."
4. "I disagree with what you're saying, so I'm going to complain that your argument isn't even comprehensible."
5. [gives up]
They are tracking dangerous criminals, not honest Americans!
You act as if there's a difference. Such a silly, naive fool.
"The Bible isn't historically accurate" is a common argument for claiming it's a load of bunk. He was responding to that point before someone made it in this specific instance.
Hey, they're a bunch of oppressed Chinese people. Why should I care if we cause them to be imprisoned or killed just to make a political statement?
The difference being that people don't generally try to disprove Futurama by finding instances where it contradicts historical sources.
Hmmm...structural integrity, or prettiness. Such a hard choice...well, this *is* an Apple device we're talking about here, so go figure.
Yay sensationalism. A scratch on your fancy $400 Apple iStatusSymbol is of equal importance to the President of the United States conducting illegal wiretapping? Come on.
Well, at least I can guess how to correctly pronounce all except "de Bounevialle" on the first try...okay, that and "Dido" (50-50 chance).