If you portrait current day war you have a responsibility to do it at least somewhat accurately.
This CD has been waking me up for a couple years now. This morning I had a powerful reaction when I heard the words, "With, without. And who'll deny, it's what the fighting's all about?" I love compression in communication. It's so cool how they reduced the enormity of war and conflict to two words: with, without.
That's accurately portraying a war. And "Dark Side of the Moon" is one of the biggest-selling albums of all time. I'd love to see a game where you devise strategies to go after resources held by the enemy, with that understood to be the goal.
More like the perceived threat of lethal force if you do not cooperate.
I really liked a post here a couple days ago, which described all actions that police and authorities are allowed to do, which the general populace is not allowed to do, as "evil actions" and that these must be granted only cautiously, and reviewed frequently.
Such as: kidnapping (police call it "arrest", and now "detainment" -- yeah, it was attached to the article regarding that); theft (when they write you a ticket, they are taking your money; also court fines and costs, as well as the RICO act that allows them to charge your property with a crime, and take it, and then you have to prove your property's innocence, which doesn't much sound like "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law"); torture/physical abuse (if you don't obey their commands; and, sometimes they will issue conflicting commands so they can play with the taser); and murder (they sometimes kill criminals, and sometimes innocents lying on the ground at BART platforms).
I've long had similar thoughts brewing, but it was great to see this other poster's eloquence, which I can only aspire to attain.
Yep. Owner of iPhone 3 (the older one). Bought a $5 cable to hook it up to composite inputs (TV). Cable works for about 3 seconds, then gives some stupid error message (not exactly "Pay us $45 to make this work" but I interpreted it that way). Fuck Apple. When my contract ends, I'm moving to Android quickly.
I don't want to turn off all signatures. However, I don't want to ever see the parent's again. Can you make that a feature? (More granular signature removal, is the idea.)
[...] I guarantee you, a computer will never be able to produce the emotions that some of the great artists' recordings can.
I guarantee you, this is what you sound like: "Human X will never be able to reproduce what human Y created."
You're both wrong, and "not even wrong" -- of course the same sound can be produced by two independent entities in two different locations.
And "producing emotions" is simply "hitting the brain with the right pattern of sensory inputs."
So, your guarantee is worth about the same as the last fucking rebate I got suckered into, and then forgot about. Yay, my monitor is $30 more, and I'm upset; big fucking deal. You're wrong: computers will be able to produce emotions. They already can. (See: "I'm upset.")
The other thing you can do is add texture which separates the flow from the object and usually reduces the size of the low pressure bubble behind it, and this is why golf balls are stippled.
I remember a MythBusters episode where they added a bunch of clay to a car (adding quite a bit of body weight), and then carved out dimples like a golf ball would have.
The car ended up getting better fuel efficiency than the original (lighter, smoother) car. I was really impressed, especially because it had to overcome the added weight.
"Whoever loves instruction loves knowledge, But he who hates correction is stupid." Proverbs 12:1 (NKJV)
Interesting, to find this quote in the bible! It also says (somewhere near the end) "he who adds to these words has the evils of the world added to them; and he who removes from these words has the kingdom of heaven removed from their life." So: the bible hates correction, and therefore based on its own heuristics, is stupid. Thanks for that!:)
Wow, you're just out there. Biologists are the ones that they're taking aim at; biologists are the ones who hold forth the evolutionary theory. No scientist calls themselves an "Evolutionist" so why do you think that it's not a derogatory term invented by the religious in an attempt to divide the debate, and isn't that exactly what we're wasting our time with right now? Nice trolling, though.
Perhaps I've been watching too much Tosh.0 lately, but I read your ending as "The creationists have continued filming their exploits instead of logically taking stock of their ridiculous position -- and for that, we thank them!"
Actually I would argue that they fell in precisely the manner a sane demolition expert would have tried; they did very little damage to the surrounding buildings. Had they toppled like "timber!", they would have done far more destruction. But it's silly to argue that it was a conspiracy; what with AT&T's secret room and all that, you won't likely be arguing with me for long.:)
This is where creationism and similar cargo cults fail [...]
Wow, I really like that comparison (after having watched the first Zeitgeist movie). "This coke bottle fell from the sky, it's our God!" Versus "We worship the Sun God, whose rays fell from the sky." The parallels between Christianity and the hundreds of other contemporarily-created religions are far too similar to be mere coincidences -- in other words, the dominant religion on this planet borrowed from others that came before it, and is very much a "cargo cult". Thanks.
[...] and I am yet to meet a single person who when asked "why do you believe in God?" responds "because I just couldn't explain a particular physical process".
I believe in "some sort of quantum-based protector" because our brains work on quantum principles, and we've collectively been thinking about (and, thus, powering) this "protector" for thousands of years.
Now, whether the "protector" that we have created is at all related to a "creator", I cannot say (and actively believe against). But I am fairly well convinced that we do have a "protector", that we're powering both with our prayers and our dreams (to protect us while we sleep). No, I have no evidence; at least, not yet -- but I have begun thinking of experiments I can do once we have achieved a sufficient level of technology.
I don't talk about this "belief" much, but it's really more of an "untested hypothesis". At any rate, religion should not be taught in science class.
Took me years to figure out what the hell self abuse was in this context.
Yikes, when I hear religious people talking about self abuse, I always think of the whips and chains that they use to flagellate themselves to become more pious or something. Not, not NOT "lovingly removing the testosterone every couple days so I won't have to launder my sheets!"
Boy, is their value system messed up. I heard a bit on NPR today at lunch about some females who had relationships with (Catholic) priests, and are petitioning the Catholic Church to stop the ridiculous order of celibacy, which has led to so much abuse of altar boys et al. Why would they think that creating a situation where the priests need to launder their sheets weekly won't result in them acting out, due to the significantly increased testosterone flowing through their bodies? Ah well, at least the Catholics don't advocate whacking off the tip of your Manhood like the fucking Jews who convinced my non-Jewish parents to unceremoniously deprive me of those 30-40,000 nerve endings that I will never experience with.
Wow, you argue so much that this last post only had three words per line, squished all up against the right margin. "Evolutionists" is a term not used anywhere outside this debate, right? It's a term that was invented by the fundamentalists pushing their agenda, right? Why the fuck would you defend it?
In 1968, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Epperson v. Arkansas that Arkansas's law prohibiting the teaching of evolution was in violation of the First Amendment.
Holy fucking shit. This has been going on longer than I have been alive, and they're still up to their shit. "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance," indeed...
I really, really like how your last paragraph flowed neatly into your signature. "Read what I wrote previously so as not to waste everyone's time. Oh, and, have you considered the following argument: shut up." Well done sir.
Slashdot Mirror
This CD has been waking me up for a couple years now. This morning I had a powerful reaction when I heard the words, "With, without. And who'll deny, it's what the fighting's all about?" I love compression in communication. It's so cool how they reduced the enormity of war and conflict to two words: with, without.
That's accurately portraying a war. And "Dark Side of the Moon" is one of the biggest-selling albums of all time. I'd love to see a game where you devise strategies to go after resources held by the enemy, with that understood to be the goal.
But then, I guess I just described StarCraft.
Apple's new iArm uses a secret resistor configuration to ensure that this never happens, and that all your wallet are belong to them.
I really liked a post here a couple days ago, which described all actions that police and authorities are allowed to do, which the general populace is not allowed to do, as "evil actions" and that these must be granted only cautiously, and reviewed frequently.
Such as: kidnapping (police call it "arrest", and now "detainment" -- yeah, it was attached to the article regarding that); theft (when they write you a ticket, they are taking your money; also court fines and costs, as well as the RICO act that allows them to charge your property with a crime, and take it, and then you have to prove your property's innocence, which doesn't much sound like "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law"); torture/physical abuse (if you don't obey their commands; and, sometimes they will issue conflicting commands so they can play with the taser); and murder (they sometimes kill criminals, and sometimes innocents lying on the ground at BART platforms).
I've long had similar thoughts brewing, but it was great to see this other poster's eloquence, which I can only aspire to attain.
Yep. Owner of iPhone 3 (the older one). Bought a $5 cable to hook it up to composite inputs (TV). Cable works for about 3 seconds, then gives some stupid error message (not exactly "Pay us $45 to make this work" but I interpreted it that way). Fuck Apple. When my contract ends, I'm moving to Android quickly.
Dear Slashdot,
I don't want to turn off all signatures. However, I don't want to ever see the parent's again. Can you make that a feature? (More granular signature removal, is the idea.)
Sincerely,
Thing 1
What is the Roomba the first generation of?
I guarantee you, this is what you sound like: "Human X will never be able to reproduce what human Y created."
You're both wrong, and "not even wrong" -- of course the same sound can be produced by two independent entities in two different locations.
And "producing emotions" is simply "hitting the brain with the right pattern of sensory inputs."
So, your guarantee is worth about the same as the last fucking rebate I got suckered into, and then forgot about. Yay, my monitor is $30 more, and I'm upset; big fucking deal. You're wrong: computers will be able to produce emotions. They already can. (See: "I'm upset.")
It sounds like you're defending the broken window fallacy.
Attacking? You misconstrue.
I remember a MythBusters episode where they added a bunch of clay to a car (adding quite a bit of body weight), and then carved out dimples like a golf ball would have.
The car ended up getting better fuel efficiency than the original (lighter, smoother) car. I was really impressed, especially because it had to overcome the added weight.
Interesting, to find this quote in the bible! It also says (somewhere near the end) "he who adds to these words has the evils of the world added to them; and he who removes from these words has the kingdom of heaven removed from their life." So: the bible hates correction, and therefore based on its own heuristics, is stupid. Thanks for that! :)
Yep, as I suspected: there aren't any.
These haikus are not
Accurate though, because they
don't mention seasons!
Okay, find me someone who self-identifies as an "evolutionist".
Wow, you're just out there. Biologists are the ones that they're taking aim at; biologists are the ones who hold forth the evolutionary theory. No scientist calls themselves an "Evolutionist" so why do you think that it's not a derogatory term invented by the religious in an attempt to divide the debate, and isn't that exactly what we're wasting our time with right now? Nice trolling, though.
It's not petty to have them use a term that the people who hold those views use on themselves. Just a thought.
Perhaps I've been watching too much Tosh.0 lately, but I read your ending as "The creationists have continued filming their exploits instead of logically taking stock of their ridiculous position -- and for that, we thank them!"
Actually I would argue that they fell in precisely the manner a sane demolition expert would have tried; they did very little damage to the surrounding buildings. Had they toppled like "timber!", they would have done far more destruction. But it's silly to argue that it was a conspiracy; what with AT&T's secret room and all that, you won't likely be arguing with me for long. :)
Wow, I really like that comparison (after having watched the first Zeitgeist movie). "This coke bottle fell from the sky, it's our God!" Versus "We worship the Sun God, whose rays fell from the sky." The parallels between Christianity and the hundreds of other contemporarily-created religions are far too similar to be mere coincidences -- in other words, the dominant religion on this planet borrowed from others that came before it, and is very much a "cargo cult". Thanks.
I believe in "some sort of quantum-based protector" because our brains work on quantum principles, and we've collectively been thinking about (and, thus, powering) this "protector" for thousands of years.
Now, whether the "protector" that we have created is at all related to a "creator", I cannot say (and actively believe against). But I am fairly well convinced that we do have a "protector", that we're powering both with our prayers and our dreams (to protect us while we sleep). No, I have no evidence; at least, not yet -- but I have begun thinking of experiments I can do once we have achieved a sufficient level of technology.
I don't talk about this "belief" much, but it's really more of an "untested hypothesis". At any rate, religion should not be taught in science class.
WHY'S THAT, THEN?
Yikes, when I hear religious people talking about self abuse, I always think of the whips and chains that they use to flagellate themselves to become more pious or something. Not, not NOT "lovingly removing the testosterone every couple days so I won't have to launder my sheets!"
Boy, is their value system messed up. I heard a bit on NPR today at lunch about some females who had relationships with (Catholic) priests, and are petitioning the Catholic Church to stop the ridiculous order of celibacy, which has led to so much abuse of altar boys et al. Why would they think that creating a situation where the priests need to launder their sheets weekly won't result in them acting out, due to the significantly increased testosterone flowing through their bodies? Ah well, at least the Catholics don't advocate whacking off the tip of your Manhood like the fucking Jews who convinced my non-Jewish parents to unceremoniously deprive me of those 30-40,000 nerve endings that I will never experience with.
Wow, you argue so much that this last post only had three words per line, squished all up against the right margin. "Evolutionists" is a term not used anywhere outside this debate, right? It's a term that was invented by the fundamentalists pushing their agenda, right? Why the fuck would you defend it?
Holy fucking shit. This has been going on longer than I have been alive, and they're still up to their shit. "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance," indeed...
I really, really like how your last paragraph flowed neatly into your signature. "Read what I wrote previously so as not to waste everyone's time. Oh, and, have you considered the following argument: shut up." Well done sir.