What are you talking about? We'd have way less than 100m^2 if 6 billion people lived in Texas. It'd be more like 10cm^2 for every person.
According to Wikipedia, Texas has an area of 695,622 square kilometers. 6,000,000,000 / 695,622 ~= 8,625 people per square kilometer. There are 1,000,000 square meters in a square kilometer, so each person would have approximately 116 square meters.
Even though the original poster's math was good enough, I take issue with his Biblical quote. The accuracy of the Bible and its relevance to modern public policy are debatable (and I say this as a Christian). Even supposing we were under some divine mandate to be fruitful and multiply, what are the end conditions? Do we keep going until every natural resource is exhausted?
Please explain to me how your ISP is going to magically decrypt a message encrypted in any decent algorithm that it doesn't have the private keys for?
He/she apparently knows dick-all about cryptography and was just trolling. His/her usage of the bogus term "unencrypt" gave this away even before the BS claim itself.
If wikimedia were to allow this to happen they would be just as guilty as if they themselves censored the content. When you actively allow something like this to happen, you might as well be doing it yourself.
I'm as anti-censorship as the next guy, but that's just plain retarded.
Are you seriously claiming that making content available via a clean API would make Wikipedia "guilty" of whatever nefarious actions are committed by unrelated parties over which the Wikimedia Foundation has zero control?
the consequence of a judge ruling in Netflix' favor would be disastrous. It would be an open invitation for every "first entrant" under the sun to have a defacto monopoly, you'd begin to see patent filings left and right by all sorts of past first entrants under "prior art" and I hesitate to even wonder where that would send us.
It wouldn't be disastrous -- it would be awesome.
Think strategically, not tactically. The more blatantly obvious patent bullshit that's brought to the attention of the public, the better the chance that the awful mess that is the patent system can be reformed or even thrown out altogether before all innovation is completely choked off.
With all due respect, that's pretty pedantic (I did say "reasonably frequent") and it completely misses the point, which is that I have enough experience as a commercial aviation passenger to have a solid basis for my opinion of the aforementioned dickheads.
I'm a reasonably frequent flier (10-12 trips in the last 1.5 years) and I check everything except a laptop bag (also containing valuables like keys, digicam, GPS receiver, etc.) because I don't want to be one of the dickheads filling up the overhead bins with suitcases and causing the boarding and deplaning processes to take drastically longer than they should.
Sure, you're personally saving time by not checking and retrieving your luggage, but at what cost to the rest of us? Tragedy of the commons, etc.
In any case, even if the universe is a giant computer simulation, does that make it any less "real" (whatever "real" means)? And there's no way we'd ever know one way or another
Sure, there is. The first "The One" could free a few minds and pull the corresponding bodies out of their energy pods, and the revolution would proceed from there. Of course, the end result of the war would be a horribly unsatisfying truce in which the last "The One" dies. Or something like that. Yeah.
If I produce a mod for Solitaire featuring gay BDSM cards, can I get Vista rated M?
No, because there's no gay BDSM content already in Solitaire, dumbass. The "Hot Coffee" mod didn't add "mature"-rated content, it just unlocked what was already there (as shipped by Rockstar).
I've got a 1.0 GHz nano-ITX, with MythTv on it, leveraging the OpenChrome CN400 drivers.
Does the video output look nice? I have a mini-ITX system with a Unichrome graphics chipset (using OpenChrome drivers) and the video quality, to put it politely, sucks donkey balls. The MythTV text is barely legible.
The cute little box that serves as my MythTV front-end is real quiet
Could you elaborate on your hardware setup? My EPIA M10000 has a very noisy 40mm CPU fan (been meaning to replace that) and the case has a pair of noisy 40mm fans that I haven't had the balls to remove/undervolt yet.:-)
Things aren't so simple, have you considered the fact at least in the early stages of pregnancies you could argue that the baby is part of the mother's body.
Of course I have. Did you miss the part where I said that if you put the onset of personhood at some intermediary point (in your example, after "the early stages of pregnancies"), you can then say that abortion is moral prior to that point and immoral afterward?
If she wants to she should be able to have an abortion, she is not undermining anyone liberty, she just taking control of her own body.
Again, you've completely missed the point. You can say "it's a woman's own body!" until you're blue in the face, and the people on the religious right will be completely unmoved by your argument because there's a fundamental disconnect: you're arguing from a position of "personhood has not yet attached", whereas they believe the opposite. Hence my point: it all boils down to the onset of personhood. That's the only thing that's really up for debate.
There are other issues involved as well, even if you do believe that life begins at conception, why should you be able to make abortion illegal (or in practice illegal)? It might be immoral, but that doesn't mean it should be illegal or limited.
That's pretty simple. If you believe that personhood begins at conception, then abortion is by definition murder and society in general is obliged to stop it, just as it's obliged to stop other forms of violence.
Again, keep in mind that I have not expressed either a pro-life or pro-choice viewpoint here -- my arguments are simply to do with the framing of the debate itself.
Only in your mind its called 'killing babies', not every thinks like that. Some people believe in women using their bodies as they see fit and not being forced to undermine their liberties for some conservative zealots who like to think that they can tell other people how to live.
The abortion debate is endlessly frustrating due to people like you and the original AC poster. Hardcore pro-lifers scream about "killing babies". Hardcore pro-choicers scream about "women's rights". Both of you completely miss the point.
The only issue here is the question of when human personhood begins. Everything else is pointless, fluffy, content-free, inflammatory rhetoric.
If we grant for the sake of argument that personhood (the condition of being a recognized person with an inherent right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) begins at conception, then it becomes obviously apparent that the pro-life position is correct, with no further explanation required, and we would have no choice but to conclude that abortion is grossly immoral (and sinful, if you are a religious person).
If, on the other hand, we grant for the sake of argument that personhood begins at birth, then the pro-choice position would obviously be correct, and abortion would clearly be nothing more than a straightforward medical procedure that is a private matter between a woman and her doctor, and any efforts to limit or restrict abortions would be grossly inappropriate in a free society.
(If we assume that personhood is triggered at some intermediary point, say the onset of brainwave activity, then it would be equally straightforward to allow abortion prior to that point, and ban it afterward.)
Since the entire debate can be boiled down to a single issue, you'd be advised to try to convince each other of the correctness of your respective positions on said underlying issue rather than throwing around rhetoric. A social conservative will not be swayed by arguments about women's rights any more than a social liberal will be convinced by arguments about the rights of a zygote, embryo, or fetus.
This is because we do not have a written constitution that safeguards our rights
What makes you think that having a written constitution safeguards anything? With King George II and his cronies in power, our Constitution is good for toilet paper and not much else.
A while back we had a couple isolated incidents here in the US where morons on the ground were shining their laser pens at planes... there was a big hubub about blinding the pilots and whatnot, and one guy I think even went to jail.
According to this article in today's Detroit News, that douchebag is expected to be sentenced today. In addition, there were reports of the same thing happening a few days ago at the Detroit airport.
Slashdot Mirror
What are you talking about? We'd have way less than 100m^2 if 6 billion people lived in Texas. It'd be more like 10cm^2 for every person.
According to Wikipedia, Texas has an area of 695,622 square kilometers. 6,000,000,000 / 695,622 ~= 8,625 people per square kilometer. There are 1,000,000 square meters in a square kilometer, so each person would have approximately 116 square meters.
Even though the original poster's math was good enough, I take issue with his Biblical quote. The accuracy of the Bible and its relevance to modern public policy are debatable (and I say this as a Christian). Even supposing we were under some divine mandate to be fruitful and multiply, what are the end conditions? Do we keep going until every natural resource is exhausted?
Once again, another pointless Bush administration loss of liberty to ZERO affect on the war on terror.
Since you correctly understand that Bush's policies are stupid, why do you use his silly "War on Terror" marketing phrase?
Please explain to me how your ISP is going to magically decrypt a message encrypted in any decent algorithm that it doesn't have the private keys for?
He/she apparently knows dick-all about cryptography and was just trolling. His/her usage of the bogus term "unencrypt" gave this away even before the BS claim itself.
If wikimedia were to allow this to happen they would be just as guilty as if they themselves censored the content. When you actively allow something like this to happen, you might as well be doing it yourself.
I'm as anti-censorship as the next guy, but that's just plain retarded.
Are you seriously claiming that making content available via a clean API would make Wikipedia "guilty" of whatever nefarious actions are committed by unrelated parties over which the Wikimedia Foundation has zero control?
the consequence of a judge ruling in Netflix' favor would be disastrous. It would be an open invitation for every "first entrant" under the sun to have a defacto monopoly, you'd begin to see patent filings left and right by all sorts of past first entrants under "prior art" and I hesitate to even wonder where that would send us.
It wouldn't be disastrous -- it would be awesome.
Think strategically, not tactically. The more blatantly obvious patent bullshit that's brought to the attention of the public, the better the chance that the awful mess that is the patent system can be reformed or even thrown out altogether before all innovation is completely choked off.
With all due respect, that's pretty pedantic (I did say "reasonably frequent") and it completely misses the point, which is that I have enough experience as a commercial aviation passenger to have a solid basis for my opinion of the aforementioned dickheads.
I'm a reasonably frequent flier (10-12 trips in the last 1.5 years) and I check everything except a laptop bag (also containing valuables like keys, digicam, GPS receiver, etc.) because I don't want to be one of the dickheads filling up the overhead bins with suitcases and causing the boarding and deplaning processes to take drastically longer than they should.
Sure, you're personally saving time by not checking and retrieving your luggage, but at what cost to the rest of us? Tragedy of the commons, etc.
the majority of us have programming diploma's and electronic engineering degree's
And wonderful apostrophe skill's, apparently.
I think you just got owned by a stock troll post. :-)
In any case, even if the universe is a giant computer simulation, does that make it any less "real" (whatever "real" means)? And there's no way we'd ever know one way or another
Sure, there is. The first "The One" could free a few minds and pull the corresponding bodies out of their energy pods, and the revolution would proceed from there. Of course, the end result of the war would be a horribly unsatisfying truce in which the last "The One" dies. Or something like that. Yeah.
If I produce a mod for Solitaire featuring gay BDSM cards, can I get Vista rated M?
No, because there's no gay BDSM content already in Solitaire, dumbass. The "Hot Coffee" mod didn't add "mature"-rated content, it just unlocked what was already there (as shipped by Rockstar).
Another possibility if your employee workstations run any flavor of Linux or BSD is to simply remove all the web browsers. Seriously.
Someone using Linux or BSD can't figure out how to sneak in a copy of firefox-x.xx.tar.gz and unpack it in his home directory?
My boss is amoung them. I enjoy working for her [...] As I said i do enjoy working for her(the side benefits aren't bad for the job)
:-)
You're hitting that, aren't you?
Wal-Mart has shown in the past that its not adverse to hiring illegals
http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/its.html
http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/adverse.html
who's only concern is to it's shareholders
Ah, my eyes! Somebody stop the pain!
I've got a 1.0 GHz nano-ITX, with MythTv on it, leveraging the OpenChrome CN400 drivers.
Does the video output look nice? I have a mini-ITX system with a Unichrome graphics chipset (using OpenChrome drivers) and the video quality, to put it politely, sucks donkey balls. The MythTV text is barely legible.
The cute little box that serves as my MythTV front-end is real quiet
:-)
Could you elaborate on your hardware setup? My EPIA M10000 has a very noisy 40mm CPU fan (been meaning to replace that) and the case has a pair of noisy 40mm fans that I haven't had the balls to remove/undervolt yet.
Things aren't so simple, have you considered the fact at least in the early stages of pregnancies you could argue that the baby is part of the mother's body.
Of course I have. Did you miss the part where I said that if you put the onset of personhood at some intermediary point (in your example, after "the early stages of pregnancies"), you can then say that abortion is moral prior to that point and immoral afterward?
If she wants to she should be able to have an abortion, she is not undermining anyone liberty, she just taking control of her own body.
Again, you've completely missed the point. You can say "it's a woman's own body!" until you're blue in the face, and the people on the religious right will be completely unmoved by your argument because there's a fundamental disconnect: you're arguing from a position of "personhood has not yet attached", whereas they believe the opposite. Hence my point: it all boils down to the onset of personhood. That's the only thing that's really up for debate.
There are other issues involved as well, even if you do believe that life begins at conception, why should you be able to make abortion illegal (or in practice illegal)? It might be immoral, but that doesn't mean it should be illegal or limited.
That's pretty simple. If you believe that personhood begins at conception, then abortion is by definition murder and society in general is obliged to stop it, just as it's obliged to stop other forms of violence.
Again, keep in mind that I have not expressed either a pro-life or pro-choice viewpoint here -- my arguments are simply to do with the framing of the debate itself.
Only in your mind its called 'killing babies', not every thinks like that. Some people believe in women using their bodies as they see fit and not being forced to undermine their liberties for some conservative zealots who like to think that they can tell other people how to live.
The abortion debate is endlessly frustrating due to people like you and the original AC poster. Hardcore pro-lifers scream about "killing babies". Hardcore pro-choicers scream about "women's rights". Both of you completely miss the point.
The only issue here is the question of when human personhood begins. Everything else is pointless, fluffy, content-free, inflammatory rhetoric.
If we grant for the sake of argument that personhood (the condition of being a recognized person with an inherent right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) begins at conception, then it becomes obviously apparent that the pro-life position is correct, with no further explanation required, and we would have no choice but to conclude that abortion is grossly immoral (and sinful, if you are a religious person).
If, on the other hand, we grant for the sake of argument that personhood begins at birth, then the pro-choice position would obviously be correct, and abortion would clearly be nothing more than a straightforward medical procedure that is a private matter between a woman and her doctor, and any efforts to limit or restrict abortions would be grossly inappropriate in a free society.
(If we assume that personhood is triggered at some intermediary point, say the onset of brainwave activity, then it would be equally straightforward to allow abortion prior to that point, and ban it afterward.)
Since the entire debate can be boiled down to a single issue, you'd be advised to try to convince each other of the correctness of your respective positions on said underlying issue rather than throwing around rhetoric. A social conservative will not be swayed by arguments about women's rights any more than a social liberal will be convinced by arguments about the rights of a zygote, embryo, or fetus.
Referenced Xerox Sparc
That's Xerox PARC, retard.
CloneCD, perhaps?
This is because we do not have a written constitution that safeguards our rights
What makes you think that having a written constitution safeguards anything? With King George II and his cronies in power, our Constitution is good for toilet paper and not much else.
keep up with the Jones'es?
Aaaahhh, my eyes!
http://angryflower.com/aposter3.jpg
A while back we had a couple isolated incidents here in the US where morons on the ground were shining their laser pens at planes... there was a big hubub about blinding the pilots and whatnot, and one guy I think even went to jail.
According to this article in today's Detroit News, that douchebag is expected to be sentenced today. In addition, there were reports of the same thing happening a few days ago at the Detroit airport.
People are stupid.
http://fetchyahoo.twizzler.org/