To be fair, it can be hard to distinguish between "no trucks allowed because they will get stuck" and "no trucks allowed because we are assholes and try to tell everybody where they can drive."
It's actually 1/2 of that, as you've failed to account for the 180 rotation of the entire picture. (i.e. a picture which is identical is constructed twice by your algorithm, once right side up and once up side down.
I've long felt that 'Science' has not gotten the scrutiny and skepticism from society that other facts of life do. (Much like religion in the past, which contributed to some of the widely publicized recent sex scandals).
Before you jump all over me for being a knuckle-dragging Arkansan, listen to how I came to this conclusion. I recently graduated with a degree in the sciences from a fairly prestigious university. While I was there, I worked as an undergraduate research assistant in several of our labs.
I quickly came to the conclusion that people would do ANYTHING to further their own agenda (whether it was grants, ideology, whatever). I saw people fabricate data, intentionally misinterpret data, unintentionally misinterpret data, use poor technique and then claim valid results, etc. If the advisor said he wanted results, results he was going to get.
This experience rid me of my rose-colored glasses when it came to science. I realized that scientists are just like anyone else. They have their own goals and, if necessary, will lie, cheat, and steal to reach them.
If you fall, do you say "I fallt"? Spelled follows the standard past verb format. Given English has so many exceptions, this isn't always a good guide, but it's a little rich to claim it's 'incorrect' based on an exception that is recognized only in your place of origin. (UK?)
Also, what do you mean by "not a first language"? Generally I take that to mean that it's not the birth language of the people, but that's obviously not the case here.
They are an attempt to provide an economic incentive to pollute less.
Several studies have shown that these types of incentives tend to cause the behavior to become worse, because they introduce an economic incentive that releases people from their moral incentive. If I can buy off my guilt for a few bucks, I have reduced my motivation not to pollute/write bad code.
The fact that this same social effect took place with regard to indulgences (people 'sinned' more) undermines your claim that this is any different. Whether or not you feel motivated by hell doesn't change the fact that people then were. How would you like people to come along in a couple of hundred years and mock you for your naivety?
And it's not really the same at all, not even close, Fox News doesn't further the discourse in this country. Whereas people really do need to have broadband to properly participate in the nation.
You realize that you just implied that other people's basic rights should depend on whether you think they're contributing to 'good' discourse or not, right?
Isn't the whole point of free speech that everyone is allowed to contribute to the discourse?
I'm fine with french people socially ostracizing people wearing religious symbols. The government legislating whether people are allowed to, not so much.
Why does everyone on/. always react with outrage when someone or some corporation does their best to avoid taxes? I personally hate taxes, hate the fact that the government basically steals a third of my paycheck every month. I have nothing but sympathy for someone who's doing their best to avoid them.
Where does the outrage come from?
Misguided moralizing about obedience to government?
Irritation that someone else is avoiding taxes when you're not?
Sales tax is unfair because it's a regressive tax. It's base on how much you buy, not how much you make, and the poor are taxed more percentage wise than a rich person. A $20 shirt with 6% sales tax costs the same if you make $10,000 vs if you make $1,000,000. Income tax is the fair way to go.
I see where you're coming from, but if you follow this argument out:
Differentiated income is unfair. The cost of living is based on how much you buy, not how much you make, and the poor pay more percentage wise for basic necessities than a rich person. A $20 shirt costs the same if you make $10,000 vs if you make $1,000,000. Identical income is the fair way to go.
What do we learn from this? Life is unfair. Sorry if you're just finding this out.
However, it is the person who makes the claim that should prove it. So that there's a deity is up to the church to prove, and not for the science to disprove.
This sort of "who should have to prove it" attitude is what makes the God/no God debate so fucking irritating. Given everyone has to make up their own mind, it's retarded to even attempt to find a general consensus / accepted view / whatever. Much better to say "here are all the theories people have, make up your own mind."
Slashdot Mirror
To be fair, it can be hard to distinguish between "no trucks allowed because they will get stuck" and "no trucks allowed because we are assholes and try to tell everybody where they can drive."
There are no differing nipples and holes anymore, so you can't fail anymore.
This is the worst argument for homosexuality that I've ever heard.
It's actually 1/2 of that, as you've failed to account for the 180 rotation of the entire picture. (i.e. a picture which is identical is constructed twice by your algorithm, once right side up and once up side down.
I've long felt that 'Science' has not gotten the scrutiny and skepticism from society that other facts of life do. (Much like religion in the past, which contributed to some of the widely publicized recent sex scandals).
Before you jump all over me for being a knuckle-dragging Arkansan, listen to how I came to this conclusion. I recently graduated with a degree in the sciences from a fairly prestigious university. While I was there, I worked as an undergraduate research assistant in several of our labs.
I quickly came to the conclusion that people would do ANYTHING to further their own agenda (whether it was grants, ideology, whatever). I saw people fabricate data, intentionally misinterpret data, unintentionally misinterpret data, use poor technique and then claim valid results, etc. If the advisor said he wanted results, results he was going to get.
This experience rid me of my rose-colored glasses when it came to science. I realized that scientists are just like anyone else. They have their own goals and, if necessary, will lie, cheat, and steal to reach them.
Or we could replace the autistic kids with socially aware robots :P
If you fall, do you say "I fallt"? Spelled follows the standard past verb format. Given English has so many exceptions, this isn't always a good guide, but it's a little rich to claim it's 'incorrect' based on an exception that is recognized only in your place of origin. (UK?)
Also, what do you mean by "not a first language"? Generally I take that to mean that it's not the birth language of the people, but that's obviously not the case here.
Step 1: Back up your data. Step 2: Install SUSE Linux. Step 3: Profit? Step 4: Laugh at Microsoft. [schadenfreude here]
schadenfreude
I got this part:
schadenfreude
Uh...it is. Spelt is a cereal grain. Spelled is the verb meaning to spell.
They are an attempt to provide an economic incentive to pollute less.
Several studies have shown that these types of incentives tend to cause the behavior to become worse, because they introduce an economic incentive that releases people from their moral incentive. If I can buy off my guilt for a few bucks, I have reduced my motivation not to pollute/write bad code. The fact that this same social effect took place with regard to indulgences (people 'sinned' more) undermines your claim that this is any different. Whether or not you feel motivated by hell doesn't change the fact that people then were. How would you like people to come along in a couple of hundred years and mock you for your naivety?
That's what she said
China Enforces Even Stricter Regulation On Games
By "enforce" they mean "beat you to death if you fail to comply."
That's what she said!
Enlightenment already developed by Rousseau, Diderot, and Voltaire, among others.
That seems like it would be effective.
What if I want to be a bum and play Xbox all day and don't have a salary?
We need shorter expirations on war crimes treaties.
How do they get anyone to pay for electricity or heating? I sure wouldn't.
And it's not really the same at all, not even close, Fox News doesn't further the discourse in this country. Whereas people really do need to have broadband to properly participate in the nation.
You realize that you just implied that other people's basic rights should depend on whether you think they're contributing to 'good' discourse or not, right?
Isn't the whole point of free speech that everyone is allowed to contribute to the discourse?
We see evolution taking away limbs but never adding new ones.
Given that life started as something resembling an amoeba, I'm not sure how you came to this conclusion.
Who to hate? Talk about Sophie's choice.
I agree with the other guy saying this post shouldn't be modded up. Regardless of the point he's trying to make, he's completely incoherent.
Right, yes. Desire to do so, let's hope not.
I'm fine with french people socially ostracizing people wearing religious symbols. The government legislating whether people are allowed to, not so much.
Why does everyone on /. always react with outrage when someone or some corporation does their best to avoid taxes? I personally hate taxes, hate the fact that the government basically steals a third of my paycheck every month. I have nothing but sympathy for someone who's doing their best to avoid them.
Where does the outrage come from?
Misguided moralizing about obedience to government?
Irritation that someone else is avoiding taxes when you're not?
Enlighten me, please.
Sales tax is unfair because it's a regressive tax. It's base on how much you buy, not how much you make, and the poor are taxed more percentage wise than a rich person. A $20 shirt with 6% sales tax costs the same if you make $10,000 vs if you make $1,000,000. Income tax is the fair way to go.
I see where you're coming from, but if you follow this argument out:
Differentiated income is unfair. The cost of living is based on how much you buy, not how much you make, and the poor pay more percentage wise for basic necessities than a rich person. A $20 shirt costs the same if you make $10,000 vs if you make $1,000,000. Identical income is the fair way to go.
What do we learn from this? Life is unfair. Sorry if you're just finding this out.
Why on earth would you pay a tax you don't have to?
However, it is the person who makes the claim that should prove it. So that there's a deity is up to the church to prove, and not for the science to disprove.
This sort of "who should have to prove it" attitude is what makes the God/no God debate so fucking irritating. Given everyone has to make up their own mind, it's retarded to even attempt to find a general consensus / accepted view / whatever. Much better to say "here are all the theories people have, make up your own mind."