Only according to your ethical compass. Mine says animals are here to help provide for our needs such as food and clothing and horsepower before the harnessing of steam and derivatives thereof.
We are either a natural product (animal) of nature taking its course or we are unique and distinct from animals because we were created by a creator and endowed with special attributes, etc.
You, the user, ask the browser to load a web-page and you complain that the browser following the instructions of said page is a browser bug? Maybe in a billion years, the AI will be able to read your mind and discern what parts of what page you want the browser to ignore but until then, you'll have to tell the browser manually. And you may have to resort to not visiting pages that don't respond to your liking. Make sure you let the site author's know of your likes and dislikes but don't get your panties in a wad when they don't care about, you, the individual who isn't actually paying them in the first place.
Depends on the corporation now doesn't it? The corporation in question during the completely misrepresented SCOTUS ruling was, in acutality, a corporation formed for the purpose of a "voluntary grouping for political reasons." The line of reasoning the justices were following is that the laws of the US have been manipulated to the point of requiring such voluntary groupings to form a corporation in order to pool their money and then laws were enacted to prevent them from using that money to buy speech time.
You see, in days of yore, a man could afford to print up some pamphlets and distribute them on his own and have quite an impact on the political environment. In keeping with the original intent of those old guys of days gone by, the current SCOTUS realized that buying airtime and distributing movies IS the modern equivalent of printing and distributing pamphlets and that "the average guy" is no longer able to effectively make political speech without pooling resources with like-minded individuals (that other first amendment right).
That's all I need to do to replace my brake pads? Thanks for the knowledge. I thought I was going to have to remove the lug nuts and tires and then pull the rotors off and then disassemble the pad/plunger thing and then reverse the whole process. Your way is much quicker and doesn't even involve the expense of purchasing the new pads. Awesome.
Unfortunately, this is probably only available on the newer cars so I'll have to do my 2001 Yukon the old-fashioned way.
Why would they even need this? Policy over here is that if the car is illegally parked and blocking access to hydrants and such, they just use the their axes to go through the windows to run lines or use the very large bumpers their trucks are equipped with to quickly move the car. Anything else is just wasting time.
Sometimes the manufacturer even labels them as parking brakes because that really is what they are mostly intended for these days and probably never were intended as anything else. Have you ever examined the braking system on a semi? There is no redundant system. They only have one set of pads and a single method of applying them.
Only if your 20/20 hindsight can discern that the Japanese threat continue the fight until no Japanese was left living to fight was nothing more than simple rhetoric. With the current internal debate in Japan about the direction their military might be going and the fears this invokes in the minds of some Japanese people today, I think the evidence is still there to say that it was not an empty threat. And, given the way the war was going, many more Japanese lives would have been lost than American had the fighting continued. Many more Japanese lives would have been lost by continuing the conventional war than were lost by dropping the bombs.
No. It is suggesting a convex surface on the outside of a concave surface. Why the hell would I want to wear a hat if I had to constantly balance it on my head?
Typical lazy-ass European complaining about Americans not doing the work for them.
Why is it that not many Americans on here complain about articles that use metric units? Probably because we are actually nerds that can do math instead of lazy-ass wannabees.
I think the AC you replied to was asking why what you just said is the way it is? Two people lied. One is held in contempt by scientists, the other not. I think that says a whole lot about the motives of the scientists. I think that was also the point the AC was trying to make.
He is deemed to have correctly predicted that portions of Florida are already under water or is he deemed to be correct because somebody else has also made a similar prediction?
Or are you talking about that he is actually a true prophet but he was talking about the housing market instead of the ocean levels?
What do you mean by "since it first froze"? That implies that it was once ice free and that can't be because we all "know" that the earth's climate has always been exactly the same until about 50 years ago when all of our burning stuff started to take effect.
AGW at the worst extreme end of the prediction model might say 70m but the confidence level for that is never published. It is probably in the range of monkeys flying out of derriers. The tame end is something like no change at all. It would be nice if the range were broken down into meaningful smaller ranges with confidence levels attached.
Only as contradictory as the rest of the doom and gloom argument such as as recently as 600 years ago, a significant amount of Greenland was ice-free such that people actually built small villages with rock houses and such. In the time since then, they were completely covered year round with glaciers. Now the glaciers have receded to reveal said villages. This has always been known because of written history but was denied by the climate change crowd. Now that the glaciers have receded we have actual proof that this unprecedented level of glacial recession in Greenland is not exactly unprecedented.
And constantly blathering on about how evil we are as a whole and that we are destroying the planet and that we are causing the climate to no longer be in stasis... is so much more intelligent. Just ponder that last bit. The main complaint of the AGW (ACC) crowd is that we have caused the climate to change. The proof is that the climate is changing. That means the assumption is that the climate would never change if it weren't for the evil humans. That requires accepting that the climate has never changed. And that requires ignoring a vast amount of physical evidence as well as written and oral history. And I am in denial?!? wtf
Slashdot Mirror
Only according to your ethical compass. Mine says animals are here to help provide for our needs such as food and clothing and horsepower before the harnessing of steam and derivatives thereof.
Sorry, you can't have it both ways.
We are either a natural product (animal) of nature taking its course or we are unique and distinct from animals because we were created by a creator and endowed with special attributes, etc.
Sometimes they are every bit as interesting and informative as slashdot comments.
You, the user, ask the browser to load a web-page and you complain that the browser following the instructions of said page is a browser bug? Maybe in a billion years, the AI will be able to read your mind and discern what parts of what page you want the browser to ignore but until then, you'll have to tell the browser manually. And you may have to resort to not visiting pages that don't respond to your liking. Make sure you let the site author's know of your likes and dislikes but don't get your panties in a wad when they don't care about, you, the individual who isn't actually paying them in the first place.
Depends on the corporation now doesn't it? The corporation in question during the completely misrepresented SCOTUS ruling was, in acutality, a corporation formed for the purpose of a "voluntary grouping for political reasons." The line of reasoning the justices were following is that the laws of the US have been manipulated to the point of requiring such voluntary groupings to form a corporation in order to pool their money and then laws were enacted to prevent them from using that money to buy speech time.
You see, in days of yore, a man could afford to print up some pamphlets and distribute them on his own and have quite an impact on the political environment. In keeping with the original intent of those old guys of days gone by, the current SCOTUS realized that buying airtime and distributing movies IS the modern equivalent of printing and distributing pamphlets and that "the average guy" is no longer able to effectively make political speech without pooling resources with like-minded individuals (that other first amendment right).
No. We say we parked our car but we do that in a parking garage, parking lot or parking space.
Some houses do have carports though.
And are full of the electronics that he doesn't want because he would then lose most of the ability to maintain it.
That's all I need to do to replace my brake pads? Thanks for the knowledge. I thought I was going to have to remove the lug nuts and tires and then pull the rotors off and then disassemble the pad/plunger thing and then reverse the whole process. Your way is much quicker and doesn't even involve the expense of purchasing the new pads. Awesome.
Unfortunately, this is probably only available on the newer cars so I'll have to do my 2001 Yukon the old-fashioned way.
Why would they even need this? Policy over here is that if the car is illegally parked and blocking access to hydrants and such, they just use the their axes to go through the windows to run lines or use the very large bumpers their trucks are equipped with to quickly move the car. Anything else is just wasting time.
Sometimes the manufacturer even labels them as parking brakes because that really is what they are mostly intended for these days and probably never were intended as anything else. Have you ever examined the braking system on a semi? There is no redundant system. They only have one set of pads and a single method of applying them.
But you lived in a backwards country... We in America are so much smarter than you backwards East Europeans that we will implement it properly.
or John 8:7 but then you might have to actually learn exactly what Christ taught during his mortal life.
Only if your 20/20 hindsight can discern that the Japanese threat continue the fight until no Japanese was left living to fight was nothing more than simple rhetoric. With the current internal debate in Japan about the direction their military might be going and the fears this invokes in the minds of some Japanese people today, I think the evidence is still there to say that it was not an empty threat. And, given the way the war was going, many more Japanese lives would have been lost than American had the fighting continued. Many more Japanese lives would have been lost by continuing the conventional war than were lost by dropping the bombs.
No. It is suggesting a convex surface on the outside of a concave surface. Why the hell would I want to wear a hat if I had to constantly balance it on my head?
Typical lazy-ass European complaining about Americans not doing the work for them.
Why is it that not many Americans on here complain about articles that use metric units? Probably because we are actually nerds that can do math instead of lazy-ass wannabees.
I think the AC you replied to was asking why what you just said is the way it is? Two people lied. One is held in contempt by scientists, the other not. I think that says a whole lot about the motives of the scientists. I think that was also the point the AC was trying to make.
What is your problem, they already saw you download it?
And if monkeys were to fly out of my butt, it would hurt.
He is deemed to have correctly predicted that portions of Florida are already under water or is he deemed to be correct because somebody else has also made a similar prediction?
Or are you talking about that he is actually a true prophet but he was talking about the housing market instead of the ocean levels?
What do you mean by "since it first froze"? That implies that it was once ice free and that can't be because we all "know" that the earth's climate has always been exactly the same until about 50 years ago when all of our burning stuff started to take effect.
We can't handle it so they don't tell it to us.
AGW at the worst extreme end of the prediction model might say 70m but the confidence level for that is never published. It is probably in the range of monkeys flying out of derriers. The tame end is something like no change at all. It would be nice if the range were broken down into meaningful smaller ranges with confidence levels attached.
Only as contradictory as the rest of the doom and gloom argument such as as recently as 600 years ago, a significant amount of Greenland was ice-free such that people actually built small villages with rock houses and such. In the time since then, they were completely covered year round with glaciers. Now the glaciers have receded to reveal said villages. This has always been known because of written history but was denied by the climate change crowd. Now that the glaciers have receded we have actual proof that this unprecedented level of glacial recession in Greenland is not exactly unprecedented.
And constantly blathering on about how evil we are as a whole and that we are destroying the planet and that we are causing the climate to no longer be in stasis... is so much more intelligent. Just ponder that last bit. The main complaint of the AGW (ACC) crowd is that we have caused the climate to change. The proof is that the climate is changing. That means the assumption is that the climate would never change if it weren't for the evil humans. That requires accepting that the climate has never changed. And that requires ignoring a vast amount of physical evidence as well as written and oral history. And I am in denial?!? wtf
Or not.