Because they are non-sentient species, and commonly accepted human ethics allows us to experiment with, eat, and do other seemingly terrible things to non-sentient (read: non-human) species when there is a significant (or really, ANY) benefit to humans or humanity. Recently, humans have begun to at least accept that it is unethical to cause harm to other species for harms sake, or for "bad" reasons, which is nice.
Though I think it is becoming clear to most that Romney moved way right, out of necessity, to climb through the republican primary circus. He can't really run for a national election using the same rhetoric that he used to sway tea-partiers away from Santorum, so now he seems like the moderate that he was in Massachusetts.
I think it's telling when you realize that he's the most nationally electable candidate the republicans have had since (probably) Bush Sr., and he still struggled through the primaries. The religious right has so much political power (since they vote, and they vote together) that Mr. Contraception-is-ruining-America was almost the nominee.
Our de facto two-party system and the enduring power of the morality-police pretty much ensures that only proficient liars can be elected to national public office.
Like, I favor the young earth theory. More specifically, I favor the theory that the moon is no older than the Permian Extinction, and I consider the possibility that the Creationists could be right in their Tectonics theories (sudden motion, as opposed to gradual motion). I certainly hope they aren't. But I don't *presume* that the standard theories are right.
So, I'm assuming this last paragraph was what brought on the "troll" mods, as your post was generally interesting.
I had never heard of this Triassic-aged moon theory, which would put the formation of the moon at around 252 million years ago. I poked around and found this theory which freshens up lovely Luna by a couple hundred million years, but still not close to the Triassic. I then found this website which seems to theorize that a shift in the moon's orbit caused the Siberian traps which caused the Permian-Triassic extinction event, though it seems to assume a normal date of lunar formation.
Since I'm tired of googling, do you have any more info on this theory that you mentioned? It's clearly not mainstream, but I'm curious of the details.
wireless is like the old layer 1 hubs the traffic is sent into the air and its up to each receiver to filter the noise and ignore data not meant for it. lots of interference.
Um, well, not exactly. They are similar in that they operate at half-duplex, but WAP's operate at L2 and L3 in addition to L1 (Wifi uses CSMA/CA, vs. the CSMA/CD used by switches). Interference can be an issue, but only in an uncontrolled or poorly-designed environment (Pro tip: don't put 2.4ghz wireless phones in your wireless data center).
No.. I'm saying that the intolerance of anti-Jewish propaganda is so ensconced in in western views that we have a special word for it and there is a very low tolerance for such activities. Why are Jews so special[1] that that they need their own term to describe attacks on them, where as other groups do not have an equivalent term?
I believe this has only been the case since circa 1945. The fact that this kind of event could even happen in modern times so disgusted and shocked Europe and the West that there was a huge backlash against it. Before that, mild to moderate antisemitism was somewhat pervasive in western culture.
But it seems in the present climate that insulting muslims is deemed OK and any objection to that is repulsed with cries of "Free speech!"
This isn't true. There is usually heavy criticism of extreme anti-Muslim activities. I will admit that (unfortunately) anti-Muslim sentiment sits pretty high (especially in the US) right now, primarily due to the actions of some extremists.
3. Because we have a cadre of resident ayn rand nutters. They love anything that means they get to feel superior and blaming their problems on others. They hate being responsible for anything, even more so another human being. They like to talk about personal responsibility, but have no real interest in it. They will forgo insurance and rip me and you off by getting free care at the ER. They talk about how being forced to get car insurance is a moral outrage, but would still drive with no way to cover any costs incurred in an accident.
I thought this was an insightful observation myself, though it seems the "resident ayn rand nutters" got the mod points today.
Well, in his district about 300,000 people voted in 2004. 7% of voters would be about 21,000 people. I'm not sure what percentage of voters actually donate to congressional campaigns (a quick google raised no useful information), but I would bet that it's very small. Let's be generous and say 10% of voters donate...soooo 210 of his supporters would have to average around $238 each. I don't see this happening in the real world.
The senate rules need to change. Filibusters should actually be required to fillibuster.
I agreed with this sentiment. I researched the issue some time ago, after I read the definition of 'filibuster' and found it ludicrous. Evidently, modern politicians also find it ludicrous. When you hear the word 'filibuster' now, it really just means threat of filibuster wherein a cloture vote happens, and if cloture fails, the party who is trying to bring the measure to a vote just gives up, due to not being interested in sitting around the senate chamber for 24 hours or whatever...
This reminds me of my tea-party friends raging about the President being a pawn of the muslim brotherhood or whatever new "Obama Conspiracy Theory" they've concocted this week.
It's probably more complicated than this, but Google and Motorola were not really in the same business. Google makes Android, but they don't really make hardware. Motorola Mobility was primarily a hardware company, so Google essentially added a component to their supply chain with the purchase.
Apple and Nokia (through their partnership with Microsoft) are direct competitors in the end-to-end smartphone market, in which there are only a few players.
Most of the time, the three women in this relationship are off being independent badasses.
Independent and obnoxious badasses:-p
I find it interesting that in the fantasy series with the "strongest" female characters, the three most prominent female characters happen to be engaged in a "Ménage à quatro" together...Jordan seems to take the "women in fantasy" tropes full circle there.
Pedantically, the words "goblin" and "orc" are basically synonymous. The differences in usage are mostly colloquial vs. "official". (This is a retconned in-universe explanation, the real-life reason that we have both words is that Tolkien used "goblin" earlier in the development of his mythos, and hadn't yet decided to go with "orc" full-time when The Hobbit was originally published.)
Due to slashdot I can't look at the site, but I assume he was able to extrapolate hobbit population data since there were a lot of demographic details provided in the text of and especially the appendices to The Lord of the Rings. Lots of family trees, timelines with DOB and DOD for lots of random historical figures. Similar data was available for elves and men. Dwarves were given much less demographic data, with very few historical figures named and not much detail given on dates and lifespans. Dwarves and orcs also had multiple independent 'civilizations' while Hobbits only seem to have had one.
The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings (including appendices) were basically written from the in-universe perspective of hobbits, so their (tiny) culture is represented in comparably significant detail. Cultures were presented in more or less detail corresponding to their association with hobbits (or lack thereof). The cultures of elves and men also get a boost due to additional characters, genealogies, and timelines provided in the Silmarillion and canonical portions of Unfinished Tales. In these works hobbits are barely present and, while there are lots of orcs and dwarves, there isn't a lot of demographic info provided for those cultures.
In response to this trend we have Robert Jordan's lovely Wheel of Time series. The reader is practically assaulted by strong female characters. Some readers (who love the series) believe that Jordan secretly hated women, due to his portrayal of them as overbearing and largely obnoxious. However, I think that he was just writing them rather well from his (and the typical male) perspective.
Jordan's women are emotional and moody. They all seem to think men are idiots who must be supervised at all times, though they are obsessed with their own relationships with men. Most of the women actually are in fact powerful, either with teh magix or politically. In the culture that Jordan portrays the roles of men and women are reversed in many respects, though some of these reversals seem like mild parody, since many of the traditional male/female roles remain the same as in the real world. The in-universe explanation for this is that men and women have access to different "types" of magic, and the male "type" hasn't been safely usable for millenia, so the existence of a powerful society of female sorcerers (with no male counterpart) has heavily influenced the culture.
Slashdot Mirror
self-evident
Read: anecdotal
Because they are non-sentient species, and commonly accepted human ethics allows us to experiment with, eat, and do other seemingly terrible things to non-sentient (read: non-human) species when there is a significant (or really, ANY) benefit to humans or humanity. Recently, humans have begun to at least accept that it is unethical to cause harm to other species for harms sake, or for "bad" reasons, which is nice.
Time for a Men Against the Sea movie reboot.
This post is GOLD. I'm sadface that it didn't get modded up :(:(
How about: The passage is a parabole for mans fall from grace not literal in any way?
Thisthisthis.
The whole idea of taking the creation story of Genesis literally has only really gained traction since the mid-20th century.
We have a de facto one party system.
Touché
I think you mean something more like 6012 years old.
Interestingly, there seems to be new evidence for the giant impact hypothesis.
Idiot or corrupt? YOU DECIDE!
+1 funny
Though I think it is becoming clear to most that Romney moved way right, out of necessity, to climb through the republican primary circus. He can't really run for a national election using the same rhetoric that he used to sway tea-partiers away from Santorum, so now he seems like the moderate that he was in Massachusetts.
I think it's telling when you realize that he's the most nationally electable candidate the republicans have had since (probably) Bush Sr., and he still struggled through the primaries. The religious right has so much political power (since they vote, and they vote together) that Mr. Contraception-is-ruining-America was almost the nominee.
Our de facto two-party system and the enduring power of the morality-police pretty much ensures that only proficient liars can be elected to national public office.
Like, I favor the young earth theory. More specifically, I favor the theory that the moon is no older than the Permian Extinction, and I consider the possibility that the Creationists could be right in their Tectonics theories (sudden motion, as opposed to gradual motion). I certainly hope they aren't. But I don't *presume* that the standard theories are right.
So, I'm assuming this last paragraph was what brought on the "troll" mods, as your post was generally interesting.
I had never heard of this Triassic-aged moon theory, which would put the formation of the moon at around 252 million years ago. I poked around and found this theory which freshens up lovely Luna by a couple hundred million years, but still not close to the Triassic. I then found this website which seems to theorize that a shift in the moon's orbit caused the Siberian traps which caused the Permian-Triassic extinction event, though it seems to assume a normal date of lunar formation.
Since I'm tired of googling, do you have any more info on this theory that you mentioned? It's clearly not mainstream, but I'm curious of the details.
Seems kind of offtopic, but that's a quote from the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas, considered apocryphal by most Christian sects.
wireless is like the old layer 1 hubs the traffic is sent into the air and its up to each receiver to filter the noise and ignore data not meant for it. lots of interference.
Um, well, not exactly. They are similar in that they operate at half-duplex, but WAP's operate at L2 and L3 in addition to L1 (Wifi uses CSMA/CA, vs. the CSMA/CD used by switches). Interference can be an issue, but only in an uncontrolled or poorly-designed environment (Pro tip: don't put 2.4ghz wireless phones in your wireless data center).
I think this is what you wanted to link:
List Price Requirements
No .. I'm saying that the intolerance of anti-Jewish propaganda is so ensconced in in western views that we have a special word for it and there is a very low tolerance for such activities. Why are Jews so special[1] that that they need their own term to describe attacks on them, where as other groups do not have an equivalent term?
I believe this has only been the case since circa 1945. The fact that this kind of event could even happen in modern times so disgusted and shocked Europe and the West that there was a huge backlash against it. Before that, mild to moderate antisemitism was somewhat pervasive in western culture.
But it seems in the present climate that insulting muslims is deemed OK and any objection to that is repulsed with cries of "Free speech!"
This isn't true. There is usually heavy criticism of extreme anti-Muslim activities. I will admit that (unfortunately) anti-Muslim sentiment sits pretty high (especially in the US) right now, primarily due to the actions of some extremists.
Thank you!
Math (read: basic arithmetic) is hard. =[
3. Because we have a cadre of resident ayn rand nutters. They love anything that means they get to feel superior and blaming their problems on others. They hate being responsible for anything, even more so another human being. They like to talk about personal responsibility, but have no real interest in it. They will forgo insurance and rip me and you off by getting free care at the ER. They talk about how being forced to get car insurance is a moral outrage, but would still drive with no way to cover any costs incurred in an accident.
I thought this was an insightful observation myself, though it seems the "resident ayn rand nutters" got the mod points today.
Well, in his district about 300,000 people voted in 2004. 7% of voters would be about 21,000 people. I'm not sure what percentage of voters actually donate to congressional campaigns (a quick google raised no useful information), but I would bet that it's very small. Let's be generous and say 10% of voters donate...soooo 210 of his supporters would have to average around $238 each. I don't see this happening in the real world.
The senate rules need to change. Filibusters should actually be required to fillibuster.
I agreed with this sentiment. I researched the issue some time ago, after I read the definition of 'filibuster' and found it ludicrous. Evidently, modern politicians also find it ludicrous. When you hear the word 'filibuster' now, it really just means threat of filibuster wherein a cloture vote happens, and if cloture fails, the party who is trying to bring the measure to a vote just gives up, due to not being interested in sitting around the senate chamber for 24 hours or whatever...
I just couldn't look myself in the mirror if I voted for someone who literally stole people's pensions to make a fortune
Uh, what? I'm pretty sure private equity investing is not literally, or in any other way, stealing anyone's pensions.
His recent quid pro quos to sell National Parks and US Forest land in exchange for campaign contributions only proves it.
I thought this a ridiculous claim also, so I googled it, and this sentiment seems to be based on some remarks regarding the high percentage of federal ownership in some of the desert states.
This reminds me of my tea-party friends raging about the President being a pawn of the muslim brotherhood or whatever new "Obama Conspiracy Theory" they've concocted this week.
It's probably more complicated than this, but Google and Motorola were not really in the same business. Google makes Android, but they don't really make hardware. Motorola Mobility was primarily a hardware company, so Google essentially added a component to their supply chain with the purchase.
Apple and Nokia (through their partnership with Microsoft) are direct competitors in the end-to-end smartphone market, in which there are only a few players.
Most of the time, the three women in this relationship are off being independent badasses.
Independent and obnoxious badasses :-p
I find it interesting that in the fantasy series with the "strongest" female characters, the three most prominent female characters happen to be engaged in a "Ménage à quatro" together...Jordan seems to take the "women in fantasy" tropes full circle there.
Pedantically, the words "goblin" and "orc" are basically synonymous. The differences in usage are mostly colloquial vs. "official". (This is a retconned in-universe explanation, the real-life reason that we have both words is that Tolkien used "goblin" earlier in the development of his mythos, and hadn't yet decided to go with "orc" full-time when The Hobbit was originally published.)
Due to slashdot I can't look at the site, but I assume he was able to extrapolate hobbit population data since there were a lot of demographic details provided in the text of and especially the appendices to The Lord of the Rings. Lots of family trees, timelines with DOB and DOD for lots of random historical figures. Similar data was available for elves and men. Dwarves were given much less demographic data, with very few historical figures named and not much detail given on dates and lifespans. Dwarves and orcs also had multiple independent 'civilizations' while Hobbits only seem to have had one.
The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings (including appendices) were basically written from the in-universe perspective of hobbits, so their (tiny) culture is represented in comparably significant detail. Cultures were presented in more or less detail corresponding to their association with hobbits (or lack thereof). The cultures of elves and men also get a boost due to additional characters, genealogies, and timelines provided in the Silmarillion and canonical portions of Unfinished Tales. In these works hobbits are barely present and, while there are lots of orcs and dwarves, there isn't a lot of demographic info provided for those cultures.
In response to this trend we have Robert Jordan's lovely Wheel of Time series. The reader is practically assaulted by strong female characters. Some readers (who love the series) believe that Jordan secretly hated women, due to his portrayal of them as overbearing and largely obnoxious. However, I think that he was just writing them rather well from his (and the typical male) perspective.
Jordan's women are emotional and moody. They all seem to think men are idiots who must be supervised at all times, though they are obsessed with their own relationships with men. Most of the women actually are in fact powerful, either with teh magix or politically. In the culture that Jordan portrays the roles of men and women are reversed in many respects, though some of these reversals seem like mild parody, since many of the traditional male/female roles remain the same as in the real world. The in-universe explanation for this is that men and women have access to different "types" of magic, and the male "type" hasn't been safely usable for millenia, so the existence of a powerful society of female sorcerers (with no male counterpart) has heavily influenced the culture.