Sticking up cameras does not reduce the number of little old ladies who are mugged on their way to bingo (because this crime is pretty well non-existent to start with) but it does make the old ladies feel confident to go out,
Following your argument to the logical conclusions: Camera do not reduce the number of little old ladies getting mugged. However, little old ladies aren't as afraid to go out. So, more little old ladies go out. It's reasonable to assume that some of the little old ladies who wouldn't have gone out otherwise end up getting mugged. Therefore, the presence of cameras actually increases the number of little old ladies getting mugged.
x86 was much more lean and clean, and I could do more with it in less time.
Are you hopped up on the goofballs?:)
68K assembly is a dream compared to x86. Flat memory space, more registers to play with, and some elegant instructions. 68K assembly flows like a gentle stream; x86 assembly flows like a mudslide down a canyon.
I honestly do not undestand the apolegtic attitude for Peter Jackson expressed here on Slashdot.
I honestly do not understand why some people have to revere Tolkien's works as being sacred. Hey, I like the books. It may be my favorite fantasy series (though Song of Ice and Fire is making a damn good run). And I still though the movies were brilliant. Heck, I think there were some things in the movies that were better than the books. (gasp)
To corrupt the basic ideas and themes of an original work can not be forgiven.
"Corrupt" once again implies that the story was perfect to start with. It wasn't.
On that note, I was disappointed that they left out the part of "Fellowship" where Legolas shoots down one of the winged steeds at night (from a boat!).
[geek]He didn't shoot from the boat, he jumped out and climbed up the bank.[/geek]
- Boromir and Aragorn's last conversation was entirely made up. In the book Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas simply find him shot with arrows with a massive pile or bodies around him.
Uh, no. In the book Aragorn got to him before he died and spoke with him.
Tolkien seems to have created a very complete universe, many bits of which have a history which is not immediately obvious, and which may profit from re-reading after a few years.
All that is true, but that doesn't stop the Tom Bombadil stuff from being the most annoying chapters in the whole series.
i have recently seen a discovery channel documentary
The Discovery Channel is not the definitive word on science. In fact, they have some pretty lousy shows, science-wise. And I still don't know what "thing" you're talking about. There is a photo on the web of Ararat taken in August of 2000, and I don't see anything suspicious.
carbon dating isn't 100% accurate,
No, but for dates that recent, it's pretty good.
he dating that i heard dates it to the 1300's, which is pretty damn old.
Uh, yeah, it is. Except Jesus (if he existed) died almost 1300 years earlier.:)
there's also very solid evidence that the shroud is not a forgery.
Name one.
the only evidence i've heard that says it it a forgery is pollen from plants that were not in that area at the time of jesus.
Carbon dating.
since turkey won't allow anyone to go there, the aerial photographs of the area show a distinct ship-like shape. too perfect to be merely a rock formation.
Oh brother. There's no ship on top of Ararat, and there never was. I've seen the satellite photos, and I don't see anything that looks like a ship, let alone anything that is "too perfect". Post a link if you've got one.
and i believe the ark of the covenant is in a temple in israel somewhere.
No, it's been lost for thousands of years. Various theories put it in Israel, Ethiopia, and somewhere in England. If you know for sure where it is, you ought to tell someone.:)
What's hard is trying to discover what it is he's actually doing.
Uh, no. It's known how he does it. He's doing a "cold reading" act, combined with having microphones listening to the audience before the show so he can gather information, plus some creative editing before the show goes on the air to make it look like he did better than he really did. Not too hard, really.
i don't think humans were derived from monkeys though.
This one sentence demonstrates that you don't understand evolution, whatever your education. Humans were not "derived" from monkeys. Humans and monkeys evolved from a common ancestor.
the ark of the covenant exists,
Really? Where is it?
the shroud or turin, though not proven to be true but not disproven,
There's very solid evidence that Shroud of Turin is a forgery from the 1300s.
the story of noah's ark and the great flood appears in the koran as well as the bible and other holy books and in written history.
Except that geoolgy has shown that there was no global flood at the time it was supposed to have happened.
1. From a user interface perspective, I think skins are a horrible idea. 2. Check. HTML email is a curse. 2. No, my case is a plain gray box, and I like it that way.
By that reasoning, I would argue that the Pledge of Allegience also has no legal bearing and can also be cheerfully ignored.On the contrary. Congress made the Pledge an official pledge for the country, in violation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment.
On the other hand, they didn't have anything to do with the DoI, because Congress didn't exist until the Constitution was written. The DoI was a statement of beliefs, the 1954 law which put "under God" in the Pledge was an official act of the governing body of the country which runs contrary to the Constitution. That's the difference.
And anyway, "Creator" in the DoI is much less specific than "God", which clearly means the Christian God.
That's OK, because only the Supreme Court's opinions matter.:)
It does not give the federal government room to dictate to the states regarding religion.
OK, aside from the 14th Amendment, the Pledge, as it stands, is still unconstitutional. Congress passed a law in 1954 making the Pledge an official pledge of the United States and adding the "under God" bit. Since "under God" is clearly a religious statement, this law violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment. Therefore, the law should be struck down and the Pledge should be returned to its original form.
Slashdot Mirror
I've seen so many requirements documents that lack any form of internal consistency.
Wait, you've actually had requirements documents? I've been programming for 7 years and I've still never seen one.
First off, evolution isn't about speciation. It's just about change. But speciation can eventually result from change.
m l
But if you want examples of speciation:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.ht
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
Sticking up cameras does not reduce the number of little old ladies who are mugged on their way to bingo (because this crime is pretty well non-existent to start with) but it does make the old ladies feel confident to go out,
Following your argument to the logical conclusions: Camera do not reduce the number of little old ladies getting mugged. However, little old ladies aren't as afraid to go out. So, more little old ladies go out. It's reasonable to assume that some of the little old ladies who wouldn't have gone out otherwise end up getting mugged. Therefore, the presence of cameras actually increases the number of little old ladies getting mugged.
Is that correct?
And you can prove this is because of the cameras, right?
Why should I care who's watching me if I have nothing to hide?
If you have nothing to hide, then why are they watching you?
x86 was much more lean and clean, and I could do more with it in less time.
:)
Are you hopped up on the goofballs?
68K assembly is a dream compared to x86. Flat memory space, more registers to play with, and some elegant instructions. 68K assembly flows like a gentle stream; x86 assembly flows like a mudslide down a canyon.
Faramir does not decide to take the Ring to Gondor as a "mighty gift"
Too bad. While I didn't like the treatment of Faramir in the theatrical release, it made perfect sense in the extended edition.
After spending 1.5 movies hammering on how the Ring tempts everyone, having Faramir just shrug it off would have lessened its power.
I honestly do not undestand the apolegtic attitude for Peter Jackson expressed here on Slashdot.
I honestly do not understand why some people have to revere Tolkien's works as being sacred. Hey, I like the books. It may be my favorite fantasy series (though Song of Ice and Fire is making a damn good run). And I still though the movies were brilliant. Heck, I think there were some things in the movies that were better than the books. (gasp)
To corrupt the basic ideas and themes of an original work can not be forgiven.
"Corrupt" once again implies that the story was perfect to start with. It wasn't.
Arwen could have been given more screen time without changing her character entirely, for example.
Um, Jackson didn't so much change her character as *give* her one. She was in the books for about 3 lines, total.
On that note, I was disappointed that they left out the part of "Fellowship" where Legolas shoots down one of the winged steeds at night (from a boat!).
[geek]He didn't shoot from the boat, he jumped out and climbed up the bank.[/geek]
What do you mean "we", paleface?
You may not like virii, but if enough people use it, it is a word.
It might be a word, in the sense that it's a bunch of letters strung together, but it's still incorrect and makes you look bad.
Deal with it.
- Boromir and Aragorn's last conversation was entirely made up. In the book Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas simply find him shot with arrows with a massive pile or bodies around him.
Uh, no. In the book Aragorn got to him before he died and spoke with him.
when Arwen replaces Glorfindel at the river
Funny, I thought this was brilliant. It introduced a character who will turn out to be important while removing one that was pointless.
Tolkien seems to have created a very complete universe, many bits of which have a history which is not immediately obvious, and which may profit from re-reading after a few years.
All that is true, but that doesn't stop the Tom Bombadil stuff from being the most annoying chapters in the whole series.
Except you just paid $17 for 1 or 2 good tracks, a couple that are so-so and nine that are garbage.
i have recently seen a discovery channel documentary
:)
The Discovery Channel is not the definitive word on science. In fact, they have some pretty lousy shows, science-wise. And I still don't know what "thing" you're talking about. There is a photo on the web of Ararat taken in August of 2000, and I don't see anything suspicious.
carbon dating isn't 100% accurate,
No, but for dates that recent, it's pretty good.
he dating that i heard dates it to the 1300's, which is pretty damn old.
Uh, yeah, it is. Except Jesus (if he existed) died almost 1300 years earlier.
there's also very solid evidence that the shroud is not a forgery.
:)
Name one.
the only evidence i've heard that says it it a forgery is pollen from plants that were not in that area at the time of jesus.
Carbon dating.
since turkey won't allow anyone to go there, the aerial photographs of the area show a distinct ship-like shape. too perfect to be merely a rock formation.
Oh brother. There's no ship on top of Ararat, and there never was. I've seen the satellite photos, and I don't see anything that looks like a ship, let alone anything that is "too perfect". Post a link if you've got one.
and i believe the ark of the covenant is in a temple in israel somewhere.
No, it's been lost for thousands of years. Various theories put it in Israel, Ethiopia, and somewhere in England. If you know for sure where it is, you ought to tell someone.
What's hard is trying to discover what it is he's actually doing.
Uh, no. It's known how he does it. He's doing a "cold reading" act, combined with having microphones listening to the audience before the show so he can gather information, plus some creative editing before the show goes on the air to make it look like he did better than he really did. Not too hard, really.
i don't think humans were derived from monkeys though.
This one sentence demonstrates that you don't understand evolution, whatever your education. Humans were not "derived" from monkeys. Humans and monkeys evolved from a common ancestor.
the ark of the covenant exists,
Really? Where is it?
the shroud or turin, though not proven to be true but not disproven,
There's very solid evidence that Shroud of Turin is a forgery from the 1300s.
the story of noah's ark and the great flood appears in the koran as well as the bible and other holy books and in written history.
Except that geoolgy has shown that there was no global flood at the time it was supposed to have happened.
i just proved that it's all true.
No.
1. From a user interface perspective, I think skins are a horrible idea.
2. Check. HTML email is a curse.
2. No, my case is a plain gray box, and I like it that way.
By that reasoning, I would argue that the Pledge of Allegience also has no legal bearing and can also be cheerfully ignored.On the contrary. Congress made the Pledge an official pledge for the country, in violation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment.
On the other hand, they didn't have anything to do with the DoI, because Congress didn't exist until the Constitution was written. The DoI was a statement of beliefs, the 1954 law which put "under God" in the Pledge was an official act of the governing body of the country which runs contrary to the Constitution. That's the difference.
And anyway, "Creator" in the DoI is much less specific than "God", which clearly means the Christian God.
The Declaration of Independence has no legal bearing and can be cheerfully ignored when it comes to these kinds of discussions.
but I believe those interpretations are in error.
:)
That's OK, because only the Supreme Court's opinions matter.
It does not give the federal government room to dictate to the states regarding religion.
OK, aside from the 14th Amendment, the Pledge, as it stands, is still unconstitutional. Congress passed a law in 1954 making the Pledge an official pledge of the United States and adding the "under God" bit. Since "under God" is clearly a religious statement, this law violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment. Therefore, the law should be struck down and the Pledge should be returned to its original form.
I dont care, I'm a christian, and I see all this stuff to rid of the term "god" and change it around to be politically correct,
It has nothing to do with being politically correct. It has to do with adhering to the Constitution of the United States of America.