Have you checked the price of tree-worthy ground lately? Or materials to provide nutrients and hydration to said ground? I started digging a nursery on Broadway, but the local traffickers got all bent out of shape. Do you have a cow? Because I have a pocket full of very young trees I'd like to trade you.
Sorry, all full up on trees (half my state is a national forest, after all); although, if you have a few hundred feet of copper wire to spare, I'm sure we could work out some kind of barter.
A) How long is the person supposed to go without water while the tree grows? Or should the person drink the dirty water and possibly die before the tree is grown
B) That assumes a tree of the right type will grow where the person is located. If the local climate is not conducive to trees growing, then the person will have a long wait.
C) Assumes that the person will have the time and energy to "tend it properly". If one is spending 12 hours a day just to survive, tending a tree may not be possible.
D) Assumes the person has access to enough land to grow a tree in the first place. There is not a lot of places to grow trees in favelas and urban slums in the second and third world.
I don't see you coming up with any better ideas.
If it is so quick and easy because "stick a seed in the ground, tend to it properly, and bada-bing-bada-boom, a tree will grow", please grow one and let us know how long it takes.
Well, it's not completely free -- someone likely owns those trees. And people living in desert regions of the world don't have easy access to sapwood -- nor do people in parts of the world where the sapwood is of the wrong consistency in local trees (hardwoods, for example).
Yea, guess you've got me - I mean, it's not like a person can just, you know, stick a seed in the ground, tend to it properly, and bada-bing-bada-boom, a tree will grow, right?
Do you "swat" the airplanes and helicopters that currently fly over your house?
If they're flying below the legally established floor, I might consider it.
91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:
(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.
(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.
(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.
(d) Helicopters. Helicopters may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section if the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface. In addition, each person operating a helicopter shall comply with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the Administrator.
and/or operating the craft in an unsafe manner:
91.13 Careless or reckless operation.
(a) Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.
(b) Aircraft operations other than for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft, other than for the purpose of air navigation, on any part of the surface of an airport used by aircraft for air commerce (including areas used by those aircraft for receiving or discharging persons or cargo), in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.
What difference does it make if there is a person on board?
Other than a murder/manslaughter charge vs. possible destruction of property?
It's also, as the article points out, essentially torture. Do we want that even for violent offenders? I don't.
"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." - H. L. Mencken
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for men of good conscience to do nothing." - Thomas Jefferson
Have you seen how many people are queuing up to work as barely tolerated drones in Amazon warehouses for piss poor wages? If you think people won't do just about anything in return for a wage then you're naive.
Fulfilling Amazon orders for minimum wage != finger-fucking toddlers and grannies.
You're welcome to believe what you want; so is everyone else. Just as they have no right to shove their beliefs down your throat, you have no right to do the same to them. And, if something cannot be scientifically proven one way or the other, why bother debating it at all? Just believe what you want and move on with your life, rather than waste energy being a dick to people who might not share your beliefs. Because by taking that route, you end up being no different than the people you're really bitching about - fundamentalists.
Most "Christians" I've met have never actually read the Bible - rather, they listened to some man tell them what he believes the Bible says, and what he believes those words mean, and follow him rather than the person after whom their religion is named.
Which is a grand shame, IMO - If you take all the hocus-pocus out of the parables of Jesus Christ, it goes from being just another stupid religion based on untestable nonsense to an excellent set of moral guidelines all of humanity would profit from, if we followed en masse.
I know that no matter how much someone else bellyaches, a person is going to believe what they choose to believe. I also know that being a dickhead to that person about their beliefs doesn't do anything except make them believe in X even harder, if for no reason other than to piss the aforementioned dickhead off.
Which is why the whole "is there a God" debate is pure idiocy, in my mind. His existence cannot be proven or disproven, so why waste energy arguing about it? Just believe what you want* and get on with it.
* "Believe what you want," not "shove your beliefs down everyone elses throats because "I KNOW I'M 'RIGHT' " And yes, that applies to theist and atheists alike.
Well, if TechyImmigrant is claiming to know something that I never actually said, that's one of only two possibilities; the other being that TechyImmigrant is full of shit.
I'll leave that determination for the reader to decide.
I never actually mentioned what "my construction of God" was
I didn't mention what my construction of Santa Claus was. Do you still believe in that?
You missed my point. Why?
My guess is, too busy being pissed that someone would have the gall to "defend" an institution you personally have chosen to "be against."
For clarification, I have no problem with people choosing to follow atheism or theism - what I take issue with is the claims of absolute certainty that a lot of people, atheist and theist alike, seem to have in regards to topics in which there can be no absolute certainty, such as the existence of an "overbeing," so to speak.
When someone like TechyImmigrant here says, "there is no God," they are making the exact same bullshit, unprovable point as the people they're trying to argue against - arguing a certainty when there can be none. It's wholly non-scientific, either way.
Bicentennial Man would have been a better reference, at least in regards to the question of enlightened humanoid robots and social reaction to the same.
It's not a 'either way' thing. Your construction of God is extremely unlikely.
Amazing! You can read minds? That must be the case, as I never actually mentioned what "my construction of God" was. I was merely pointing out that other people are welcome to hold opinions and beliefs you disagree with, and that to call them "bullshit" even though you have absolutely zero evidence to back your assertion (real scientific of you, BTW) is childish and an example of incorrect reasoning.
That the universe is as we see it is far more likely.
Yea, that must be why physicists always agree on everything, and never update their models, huh? Yup, the entire universe and the mechanics behind it exist only as we perceive and understand them today, and that will never change. Yup yup.
Hanging onto wrong and worse, promoting it as the truth is evil.
I agree, so if you would please stop speaking in absolutes as if you have evidence to back your position, when you actually have nothing but your own preconceived notions, that would be fantastic. Glad you've seen the light, so to speak.
>God created humans in His image AND SET THEM FREE
FFS, there is no God. You are spouting pure bullshit. Stop it and grow up.
Says you. But since there's not enough evidence to make a conclusive assertion either way, coupled with the fact that here in America people are free to believe whatever they want (regardless of how ridiculous YOU might find it)...
[Google] offer[s] a better service for what seems quite a bit less money.
This.
I don't see how charging a one-time fee of $300 for the initial hookup is "putting broadband out of the reach of the poor" when the competing companies charge upwards of $60 - $100 per month for service. If anything, it's doing the exact opposite.
Is Michael Brick employed by ComCast or something?
Slashdot Mirror
...stick a seed in the ground...
Have you checked the price of tree-worthy ground lately? Or materials to provide nutrients and hydration to said ground? I started digging a nursery on Broadway, but the local traffickers got all bent out of shape. Do you have a cow? Because I have a pocket full of very young trees I'd like to trade you.
Sorry, all full up on trees (half my state is a national forest, after all); although, if you have a few hundred feet of copper wire to spare, I'm sure we could work out some kind of barter.
A) How long is the person supposed to go without water while the tree grows? Or should the person drink the dirty water and possibly die before the tree is grown
B) That assumes a tree of the right type will grow where the person is located. If the local climate is not conducive to trees growing, then the person will have a long wait.
C) Assumes that the person will have the time and energy to "tend it properly". If one is spending 12 hours a day just to survive, tending a tree may not be possible.
D) Assumes the person has access to enough land to grow a tree in the first place. There is not a lot of places to grow trees in favelas and urban slums in the second and third world.
I don't see you coming up with any better ideas.
If it is so quick and easy because "stick a seed in the ground, tend to it properly, and bada-bing-bada-boom, a tree will grow", please grow one and let us know how long it takes.
Depends on the tree, obviously.
Most people need clean water on a regular basis and cannot accommodate waiting for a tree to grow to quench their thirst.
Where did I say it was a perfect solution? At least it's something more than "dur, you have to buy trees from someone."
Do you have anything relevant and useful to add, or did you just come here to whine that the solution I offered isn't perfect?
Then a firing squad.
FTFY
Well played, Rhacman.
Well, it's not completely free -- someone likely owns those trees. And people living in desert regions of the world don't have easy access to sapwood -- nor do people in parts of the world where the sapwood is of the wrong consistency in local trees (hardwoods, for example).
Yea, guess you've got me - I mean, it's not like a person can just, you know, stick a seed in the ground, tend to it properly, and bada-bing-bada-boom, a tree will grow, right?
Filtering out "99%" of harmful bacteria may be like filtering out 99% of bullets fired at you....
So, I take it you're not a fan of Lysol or Purell?
What a silly thing to say; as if not filtering 99% of something harmful is a better idea...
HA!
I always love it when somebody discovers a natural, free way to accomplish a goal that someone else wants to sell me a solution to.
Do you "swat" the airplanes and helicopters that currently fly over your house?
If they're flying below the legally established floor, I might consider it.
91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:
(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.
(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.
(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.
(d) Helicopters. Helicopters may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section if the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface. In addition, each person operating a helicopter shall comply with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the Administrator.
and/or operating the craft in an unsafe manner:
91.13 Careless or reckless operation.
(a) Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.
(b) Aircraft operations other than for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft, other than for the purpose of air navigation, on any part of the surface of an airport used by aircraft for air commerce (including areas used by those aircraft for receiving or discharging persons or cargo), in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.
What difference does it make if there is a person on board?
Other than a murder/manslaughter charge vs. possible destruction of property?
Are you saying we can change the definition of words if they were created before we were born?
See: Every modern discussion about the term "regulated" as it appears in the 2nd Amendment.
To some folks, apparently yes, definitions universally change the moment that individual decides they do.
It's also, as the article points out, essentially torture. Do we want that even for violent offenders? I don't.
"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." - H. L. Mencken
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for men of good conscience to do nothing." - Thomas Jefferson
I could go on, but I shouldn't have to.
Have you seen how many people are queuing up to work as barely tolerated drones in Amazon warehouses for piss poor wages? If you think people won't do just about anything in return for a wage then you're naive.
Fulfilling Amazon orders for minimum wage != finger-fucking toddlers and grannies.
Talk about comparing apples to Boeing 747s.
Don't be a stupid douche - the answer you seek is in the Christian Bible.
Now, whether or not you see that answer as a fairy tale, fable, parable, or factual account is up to you to decide for yourself.
Oh, and PS - "insurrection" is not a condition exclusive to democracies.
You're welcome to believe what you want; so is everyone else. Just as they have no right to shove their beliefs down your throat, you have no right to do the same to them. And, if something cannot be scientifically proven one way or the other, why bother debating it at all? Just believe what you want and move on with your life, rather than waste energy being a dick to people who might not share your beliefs. Because by taking that route, you end up being no different than the people you're really bitching about - fundamentalists.
Most "Christians" I've met have never actually read the Bible - rather, they listened to some man tell them what he believes the Bible says, and what he believes those words mean, and follow him rather than the person after whom their religion is named.
Which is a grand shame, IMO - If you take all the hocus-pocus out of the parables of Jesus Christ, it goes from being just another stupid religion based on untestable nonsense to an excellent set of moral guidelines all of humanity would profit from, if we followed en masse.
You do know that you can't prove a negative?
Yes.
I know that no matter how much someone else bellyaches, a person is going to believe what they choose to believe. I also know that being a dickhead to that person about their beliefs doesn't do anything except make them believe in X even harder, if for no reason other than to piss the aforementioned dickhead off.
Which is why the whole "is there a God" debate is pure idiocy, in my mind. His existence cannot be proven or disproven, so why waste energy arguing about it? Just believe what you want* and get on with it.
* "Believe what you want," not "shove your beliefs down everyone elses throats because "I KNOW I'M 'RIGHT' " And yes, that applies to theist and atheists alike.
Did TechyImmigrant really read your mind?
Well, if TechyImmigrant is claiming to know something that I never actually said, that's one of only two possibilities; the other being that TechyImmigrant is full of shit.
I'll leave that determination for the reader to decide.
I never actually mentioned what "my construction of God" was
I didn't mention what my construction of Santa Claus was. Do you still believe in that?
You missed my point. Why?
My guess is, too busy being pissed that someone would have the gall to "defend" an institution you personally have chosen to "be against."
For clarification, I have no problem with people choosing to follow atheism or theism - what I take issue with is the claims of absolute certainty that a lot of people, atheist and theist alike, seem to have in regards to topics in which there can be no absolute certainty, such as the existence of an "overbeing," so to speak.
When someone like TechyImmigrant here says, "there is no God," they are making the exact same bullshit, unprovable point as the people they're trying to argue against - arguing a certainty when there can be none. It's wholly non-scientific, either way.
Bicentennial Man would have been a better reference, at least in regards to the question of enlightened humanoid robots and social reaction to the same.
Exactly like angels. Lucifer only fell because he became afflicted with free will.
I thought it was less because he was "afflicted with free will," and more "he used his free will to lead an insurrection against God."
Of course, it's been a minute since I actually read that part of the Christian tome, so I could very well be mistaken.
It's not a 'either way' thing. Your construction of God is extremely unlikely.
Amazing! You can read minds? That must be the case, as I never actually mentioned what "my construction of God" was. I was merely pointing out that other people are welcome to hold opinions and beliefs you disagree with, and that to call them "bullshit" even though you have absolutely zero evidence to back your assertion (real scientific of you, BTW) is childish and an example of incorrect reasoning.
That the universe is as we see it is far more likely.
Yea, that must be why physicists always agree on everything, and never update their models, huh? Yup, the entire universe and the mechanics behind it exist only as we perceive and understand them today, and that will never change. Yup yup.
Hanging onto wrong and worse, promoting it as the truth is evil.
I agree, so if you would please stop speaking in absolutes as if you have evidence to back your position, when you actually have nothing but your own preconceived notions, that would be fantastic. Glad you've seen the light, so to speak.
For many centuries, Christianity was OK with real slavery, as long as the slaves were a different race.
The same applies to many other faiths, as well as many other secular societies.
That sentence would be more accurately written, "For many centuries, humanity was OK with real slavery..."
>God created humans in His image AND SET THEM FREE
FFS, there is no God. You are spouting pure bullshit. Stop it and grow up.
Says you. But since there's not enough evidence to make a conclusive assertion either way, coupled with the fact that here in America people are free to believe whatever they want (regardless of how ridiculous YOU might find it)...
Stop it and grow up, indeed.
Cross reference the itemized costs of a routine procedure with hospital administration pay scales. It'll piss you off, guaranteed.
Well, unless you're a hospital administrator, I guess.
[Google] offer[s] a better service for what seems quite a bit less money.
This.
I don't see how charging a one-time fee of $300 for the initial hookup is "putting broadband out of the reach of the poor" when the competing companies charge upwards of $60 - $100 per month for service. If anything, it's doing the exact opposite.
Is Michael Brick employed by ComCast or something?