The choice was between a Soviet state which plays the stern nanny
You know, I never knew the Super Nanny would yank kids off the street and execute them behind some warehouse, then send their parents a bill for the bullet(s). That's pretty fucking stern.
He most likely still believes in the company and wants to make his mark on it. Otherwise you're right, he would've followed his college buddies Gates and Allen and gone off to do something else.
Corporations don't pay taxes, their customers do. And with corporate tax rates at 0%, consumers end up spending much less for the things they need and businesses find it easier to expand and hire more employees.
I'm not "skewing definitions to suit my argument". My argument is that it is irrelevant what someone says is the tenet of their belief, what is important is what that belief appears to be to an outside, disinterested observer. It doesn't matter if you believe your car is green if someone else looks at it and says "no, it's metallic green with blue highlights".
You're obviously confused about what this conversation is about, as evidenced by your continued capitalizing of a generic word ("god"). Would you agree that animists who practice ancestor worship view their ancestors as gods? If you agree with that, there's no reason (other than some illogical emotional belief) not to agree that Mohammad is, for all intents and purposes, a minor god for Muslims.
Using the same definition, yes. Just like Hercules, Gilgamesh, Siddhartha Gautama, and the First Emperor of China, legendary heroes who perform feats that no mere mortal can tend to attract a certain kind of following, or cult. Which gives them status equivalent to a god.
See my above comment to Locke2005. The character of Mohammad (as distinct from the historical person) serves the purpose of a lesser god in the Muslim religion. Just because they refuse to acknowledge that fact doesn't make it untrue.
According to their own definition, he's not a god. But according to any objective reading of their history he's at least a legendary hero and a lesser god. How else do you explain some of the things he supposedly did of a supernatural nature?
Note: the "god" is only capitalized when referring to a given supreme being as the only god in the universe (or even multiverse). It is grammatically incorrect to randomly capitalize a word that doesn't refer to a specific entity.
So you remember to say your magic words when reciting the name of your god, but have no compunction about making a buck of him. You must be an American.
Not to mention the frustration of getting a message about a reply to an earlier post, only to have navigate to the post in question to read it. Under 2.0, the message center would take you right to the post in question and wouldn't even show parent posts unless you clicked on the "parent" button.
What I hope comes about after this is an open standard for microblogging. Just because the rest of the Internet is cut off from Egypt doesn't mean (necessarily) that Egyptians can't access servers within Egypt itself. So while they're cut off from, say, Twitter, if someone had a microblogging server set up locally they could still use it to coordinate protests and demonstrations.
Facebook, Twitter, and other Web 2.0 properties are all great and all, but we really need to get back to simple open standards like finger, uucp/smtp, and nntp.
Slashdot Mirror
The choice was between a Soviet state which plays the stern nanny
You know, I never knew the Super Nanny would yank kids off the street and execute them behind some warehouse, then send their parents a bill for the bullet(s). That's pretty fucking stern.
He most likely still believes in the company and wants to make his mark on it. Otherwise you're right, he would've followed his college buddies Gates and Allen and gone off to do something else.
An elected Representative posts on Slashdot (with a five-digit UID, no less!) Maybe New Hampshire is calling my name, after all.
Corporations don't pay taxes, their customers do. And with corporate tax rates at 0%, consumers end up spending much less for the things they need and businesses find it easier to expand and hire more employees.
I'm not "skewing definitions to suit my argument". My argument is that it is irrelevant what someone says is the tenet of their belief, what is important is what that belief appears to be to an outside, disinterested observer. It doesn't matter if you believe your car is green if someone else looks at it and says "no, it's metallic green with blue highlights".
You're obviously confused about what this conversation is about, as evidenced by your continued capitalizing of a generic word ("god"). Would you agree that animists who practice ancestor worship view their ancestors as gods? If you agree with that, there's no reason (other than some illogical emotional belief) not to agree that Mohammad is, for all intents and purposes, a minor god for Muslims.
Stating that something silly is a fact doesn't make it true. It just makes you sound silly.
c.f., your post.
Using the same definition, yes. Just like Hercules, Gilgamesh, Siddhartha Gautama, and the First Emperor of China, legendary heroes who perform feats that no mere mortal can tend to attract a certain kind of following, or cult. Which gives them status equivalent to a god.
See my above comment to Locke2005. The character of Mohammad (as distinct from the historical person) serves the purpose of a lesser god in the Muslim religion. Just because they refuse to acknowledge that fact doesn't make it untrue.
According to their own definition, he's not a god. But according to any objective reading of their history he's at least a legendary hero and a lesser god. How else do you explain some of the things he supposedly did of a supernatural nature?
Note: the "god" is only capitalized when referring to a given supreme being as the only god in the universe (or even multiverse). It is grammatically incorrect to randomly capitalize a word that doesn't refer to a specific entity.
So you remember to say your magic words when reciting the name of your god, but have no compunction about making a buck of him. You must be an American.
Why do you assume safety of citizens is the primary goal of the DHS?
The government is totally out of control.
FTFY. No qualifications are needed on that statement.
Oh please let this happen. I'll post swastikas all over Fark and 4chan.
The only thing surprising about that is that some asshat somewhere hasn't suggested it.
...which is, of course, the best kind of correct. He is now a Level 10 Bureaucrat.
I'm insane
You said it, buddy.
Wait, what does that make witches?
A high court in an important-to-technology-business country just ruled that magic is science. That's pretty newsworthy.
I have the simple solution to that question: a girl said she thought it would be cool.
It is pretty sad when /. gets trumped by my idiot cousin and her Facebook wall.
Jst wnderfl nw here's cffee all ver m kebard and sme kes are stck!
Not to mention the frustration of getting a message about a reply to an earlier post, only to have navigate to the post in question to read it. Under 2.0, the message center would take you right to the post in question and wouldn't even show parent posts unless you clicked on the "parent" button.
Don't worry, you're on Comcast. You have enough problems without worrying about IPv4 vs v6 as it is.
What I hope comes about after this is an open standard for microblogging. Just because the rest of the Internet is cut off from Egypt doesn't mean (necessarily) that Egyptians can't access servers within Egypt itself. So while they're cut off from, say, Twitter, if someone had a microblogging server set up locally they could still use it to coordinate protests and demonstrations.
Facebook, Twitter, and other Web 2.0 properties are all great and all, but we really need to get back to simple open standards like finger, uucp/smtp, and nntp.
It would be unreadable, what with the thick covering of hot grits.