Nobody has to use MS, the alternative is actually free. You also don't have to use IE, every single alternative is free AND has no drawback (unlike Linux, where you could at least argue that software for Windows doesn't run easily on it).
It's the abuse of a dominant position in a field in an attempt to gain a dominant position in another field.
Think Microsoft trying to push IE and IIS onto everyone and getting away with it because they are the dominant OS. This is anti-competitive and anti-capitalist. The capitalist model requires competition to ensure better product eliminate inferior ones. Propping up a mediocre product with a dominant market position in another market to make it that way competitive to a superior product should go against everything any liberal or capitalist minded person stands for.
The problem with the Iran is rooted in the 1979 blunder. The Iran would actually be the natural ally in the Middle East, being the only really halfway modern state in the area and also the odd man out (being the only Shiite island in a sea of Sunni Muslims), which means that they could really use some outside allies.
By the way, that Sunni-Shia problem also explains a lot of the other troubles the Middle East has. What you're dealing with here is comparable to Catholics vs. Protestants. Only that they're in the mindset of the year 1600...
For a moment I was thinking we're going to get another article about AIs and how AIs think that all celebrities begin their life in Paris for some odd reason.
Yet you had things added to it, and you even had things removed from it. Yes, people consider it important (and yes, it is an important document, sadly it's being treated less and less like one, especially by your government), but it's not holy scripture that MUST NOT be altered by mere human hand. It is a document of the people, by the people and for the people. Even though these words were only used nearly a century later, they fit that document quite nicely.
The main issue is that it is a human made document, and if humans consider it a good idea, they can, consensus provided, amend it, revise it or even strike things from it. You cannot do that with holy scriptures.
For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
Someone who is certain that he's going to have fulfilled something by the time he is done (and as God's son I'd at least expect that from him, else... c'mon, that would be fishy, doesn't he get at least his general plan told by his old man?) won't talk about "until heaven and earth disappear" for something that he plans to accomplish. It would kinda defeat the purpose.
Besides, there's quite a few promises and requirements in the OT that would have to be accomplished to be considered "fulfilled", you don't want to tell me Jesus failed, do you?
No, but why would you want to add a right wing "you want fries with that" degree, doesn't the left wing social bullshit degrees produce enough future burger flippers?
According to the bible that's fine and dandy, too. The main reason between Islam and Christianity isn't the believe system, it's that the cool-aid drinkers tend to not get their way in our society.
Again, I do not believe. I examine and ponder a reason for what I see. This reason must be in sync with all other examinations that may affect it and must require as little (not as few!) assumption as possible.
What I cannot explain needs further examination. Provided that it's important enough for me (because I frankly cannot be assed to find out where the ants come from, I just kill the bugs and be done with it). I do not believe something, though, just to get around the workload of learning.
This which cannot be proven has to either be assumed axiomatically or excluded from observation as improvable. Since I cannot exclude what I perceive as reality around me, I have to axiomatically assume its existence as real. Mostly because any other option (it being a simulation or unreal figment of my imagination) makes any other examination of other sources of information moot, since they, too, would be unreal or simulated.
So if any kind of examination was to be sensible, we have to assume what we perceive as reality to be actual. If it is not, we can still examine and research, just that our findings will be invalid. Since there is no other option, at least if we don't want to sit around and twist our thumbs idly, it would be sensible to assume reality as real until other proof is forthcoming.
I'm still surprised this holds any water in court. Imagine car manufacturers trying to get away with bullshit like that.
"You get this car as-is. If you lose a wheel and kill yourself or a few dozen bystanders, it ain't our fault, no matter whether it actually is due to shoddy manufacturing or poor engineering. We'll fix your car (provided that it first fell apart due to our gross negligence and not your fault), but only for the next 5 years. Any fault you find after that you have to live with, because we won't fix it and you ain't allowed to!"
Slashdot Mirror
You do? I didn't even know that option exists.
I think it's time to fine GM and Toyota. You should sue.
Nobody has to use MS, the alternative is actually free. You also don't have to use IE, every single alternative is free AND has no drawback (unlike Linux, where you could at least argue that software for Windows doesn't run easily on it).
So what's different with Google again?
In Google search? You don't say...
It's the abuse of a dominant position in a field in an attempt to gain a dominant position in another field.
Think Microsoft trying to push IE and IIS onto everyone and getting away with it because they are the dominant OS. This is anti-competitive and anti-capitalist. The capitalist model requires competition to ensure better product eliminate inferior ones. Propping up a mediocre product with a dominant market position in another market to make it that way competitive to a superior product should go against everything any liberal or capitalist minded person stands for.
[citation needed]
But remember kids, you cannot omit that genius part. Without, carrying a blanket around and calling it your waifu only makes you a weirdo.
They could become shills for the fossil oil industry, it at least would be paid better.
Been there.
More recently, though, most of my skiing trips are canceled because of a lack of it. Either sucks.
Yes, but his general animation was much more ragged and less lifelike.
The problem with the Iran is rooted in the 1979 blunder. The Iran would actually be the natural ally in the Middle East, being the only really halfway modern state in the area and also the odd man out (being the only Shiite island in a sea of Sunni Muslims), which means that they could really use some outside allies.
By the way, that Sunni-Shia problem also explains a lot of the other troubles the Middle East has. What you're dealing with here is comparable to Catholics vs. Protestants. Only that they're in the mindset of the year 1600...
So ... stop speaking because you could make sense?
Well, maybe our Sun is the one with the goatee? Ever had sunburn?
Same.
For a moment I was thinking we're going to get another article about AIs and how AIs think that all celebrities begin their life in Paris for some odd reason.
Yet you had things added to it, and you even had things removed from it. Yes, people consider it important (and yes, it is an important document, sadly it's being treated less and less like one, especially by your government), but it's not holy scripture that MUST NOT be altered by mere human hand. It is a document of the people, by the people and for the people. Even though these words were only used nearly a century later, they fit that document quite nicely.
The main issue is that it is a human made document, and if humans consider it a good idea, they can, consensus provided, amend it, revise it or even strike things from it. You cannot do that with holy scriptures.
Sorry, nope. Matt 5:18
For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
Someone who is certain that he's going to have fulfilled something by the time he is done (and as God's son I'd at least expect that from him, else... c'mon, that would be fishy, doesn't he get at least his general plan told by his old man?) won't talk about "until heaven and earth disappear" for something that he plans to accomplish. It would kinda defeat the purpose.
Besides, there's quite a few promises and requirements in the OT that would have to be accomplished to be considered "fulfilled", you don't want to tell me Jesus failed, do you?
No, but why would you want to add a right wing "you want fries with that" degree, doesn't the left wing social bullshit degrees produce enough future burger flippers?
According to the bible that's fine and dandy, too. The main reason between Islam and Christianity isn't the believe system, it's that the cool-aid drinkers tend to not get their way in our society.
You now try to engage in a battle whose imaginary friend is cooler and whose is not an asshole?
Are you for real?
I use my brain. I already said I don't have imaginary friends, I have to think for myself.
Again, I do not believe. I examine and ponder a reason for what I see. This reason must be in sync with all other examinations that may affect it and must require as little (not as few!) assumption as possible.
What I cannot explain needs further examination. Provided that it's important enough for me (because I frankly cannot be assed to find out where the ants come from, I just kill the bugs and be done with it). I do not believe something, though, just to get around the workload of learning.
This which cannot be proven has to either be assumed axiomatically or excluded from observation as improvable. Since I cannot exclude what I perceive as reality around me, I have to axiomatically assume its existence as real. Mostly because any other option (it being a simulation or unreal figment of my imagination) makes any other examination of other sources of information moot, since they, too, would be unreal or simulated.
So if any kind of examination was to be sensible, we have to assume what we perceive as reality to be actual. If it is not, we can still examine and research, just that our findings will be invalid. Since there is no other option, at least if we don't want to sit around and twist our thumbs idly, it would be sensible to assume reality as real until other proof is forthcoming.
What victim act? All I wanted from you is a sensible answer.
"You Yanks"? What did I do to deserve being offended?
POS is a very apt description of those boxes...
I'm still surprised this holds any water in court. Imagine car manufacturers trying to get away with bullshit like that.
"You get this car as-is. If you lose a wheel and kill yourself or a few dozen bystanders, it ain't our fault, no matter whether it actually is due to shoddy manufacturing or poor engineering. We'll fix your car (provided that it first fell apart due to our gross negligence and not your fault), but only for the next 5 years. Any fault you find after that you have to live with, because we won't fix it and you ain't allowed to!"