Yes. Stealing someone's credit card is the same as suicide bombing them. Keep up the equivocation.
Nevermind the fact that stealing credit cards is actually the opposite of "without any personal gain". Indeed, having someone else's credit card that you can spend with, even if only for an hour, counts quite squarely as "gain".
You have a constitutional right to transportation, though -- and I don't think that means "if we give you a horse to ride while everyone else can do everything else, your rights aren't violated". You have a constitutional right to fly, but not to pilot. Just like you have a constitutional right to take a bus, but not to drive it. Of course, sine you could always charter a private jet for $100,000, technically your rights aren't being violated. Gotta love it!
Considering the constitutional right to travel, and the fact that tax dollars are paid for public transit, it really doesn't sit right with me. "You're allowed to benefit from our tax dollars only if you voluntarily give up your rights" is just such bullshit! Hope you agree:)
all you ever have to do is bang the corner of the lid at a 45 angle and any jar is openable by anybody... but we still make better sandwiches than them. We just can't be bothered to do it usually.
mod this off-topic, but i love your climagic twitter feed, even if my CLI of choice is TakeCommand (TCC.exe) and those examples are never represented. But I got cygwin so a lot of it is still useful for a Windows user like me who uses Windows in a "unix-esque way". Thanks for the good work.
Where should the quotes have gone, oh great quote god in the sky? I actually don't even know what comment you're referring to. Did you imply that I took remedial english? I'm not really sure what your beef is. I didn't understand one sentence, and you're willing to type paragraphs about it. It's very interesting to me. So you're the same guy who complained about Latin regarding [r]evolution. That really puts things into perspective regarding your other comments.
Anyway, the original comment "You can thank Leonard Nimoy and his In Search Of show for popularizing the Coming Ice Age, during the late 70's. If people are going to use that as proof against science, they'll also have to accept Spirit Voices, Bigfoot, and the Loch Ness Monster." confused me -- I wasn't sure which side of the argument the person who said this fell on. The phrase "proof against science" particularly confused me, as I wasn't sure why anyone would consider a TV show to be proof against science. Was he saying that the people who believed the show would also have to accept Spirit Voices (inexplicable caps.. cApiTaliZatioN cAn iNdEEd bReAK tHiNgs aNd mAke it hARder tO UnderstAND)? Because it's a bit of a leap to an atheist like me. I see the logic -- one crazy source vs another -- but for me, it's one crazy source (tv) vs something incomprehensibly impossible (spirit voices). It's like he's making an apples and apples comparison, but for me it feels like apples and oranges.
Obviously under further scrutiny I understood his point - but it was not stated clearly.
I have a feeling that the part you thought I misunderstood was not the part I actually misunderstood -- which colors your comments with a bit of humor for me.
Please forgive me. As I scored the maximum possible score on the test of standard written English, my college decided I was too good at English to need to take any classes. Obvioously they were wrong. By the way, you missed a comma in your first sentence. And the second. And your " - " would come off better as a semicolon. But you missed a comma before "even" in your clause after that.
Why is this place filling up with people who think a slashdot comment full of missing punctuation represents the height of judgment?
That would be a pretty cogent argument if we were all still speaking latin. But it's irrelevant. Revolution is an extension of evolution quite literally - extending the word by adding 1 letter to it. I'm sorry you're such a lingual hipster as to not be able to enjoy something so simple without wearing a pedant hat.
Please refer to my other post, the ones with the links that demonstrate that you are wrong. "Discussion"? Maybe. But not among scientists. ABout 90% of scientists in the 1970s were concerned about warming. The percentage has only gotten higher since. But nothing I say -- nor your own anecdotal, confirmation-bias-selected memories -- should matter. Read the articles.
"the idea that violence can create real and permanent change is mostly untrue in modern times in the Western world"
Yup. Nothing violent has created any permanent changes in the world.
That's why there's no wars or terrorist attacks.
Slashdot Mirror
Nevermind the fact that stealing credit cards is actually the opposite of "without any personal gain". Indeed, having someone else's credit card that you can spend with, even if only for an hour, counts quite squarely as "gain".
Yes. They assassinate people in other countries pretty regularly.
You have a constitutional right to transportation, though -- and I don't think that means "if we give you a horse to ride while everyone else can do everything else, your rights aren't violated". You have a constitutional right to fly, but not to pilot. Just like you have a constitutional right to take a bus, but not to drive it. Of course, sine you could always charter a private jet for $100,000, technically your rights aren't being violated. Gotta love it!
Considering the constitutional right to travel, and the fact that tax dollars are paid for public transit, it really doesn't sit right with me. "You're allowed to benefit from our tax dollars only if you voluntarily give up your rights" is just such bullshit! Hope you agree :)
Truck stops, too.
Good luck with that. We are the ones who elected them, remember?
I'd rather not bend my knives and lose (number of jars I open during the rest of my life * (time to get knife + time to put knife away)) seconds.
But then I can refuse to help and spend my time smoking and drinking instead!
all you ever have to do is bang the corner of the lid at a 45 angle and any jar is openable by anybody ... but we still make better sandwiches than them. We just can't be bothered to do it usually.
and as much as i hate to say it, we'd probably be better off
And yet, checking the immigration status of people arrested is somehow racist...
keyboards can be cleaned? damn.
mod this off-topic, but i love your climagic twitter feed, even if my CLI of choice is TakeCommand (TCC.exe) and those examples are never represented. But I got cygwin so a lot of it is still useful for a Windows user like me who uses Windows in a "unix-esque way". Thanks for the good work.
did you know gullible isn't in the dictionary?
Seeing as my grandmother was only alive because she was liberated from a Nazi camp, fuck you.
Oh, so it's kind of a No True Scotsman in disguise, eh? There will be change. It just won't be "real" or "true".
Anyway, the original comment "You can thank Leonard Nimoy and his In Search Of show for popularizing the Coming Ice Age, during the late 70's. If people are going to use that as proof against science, they'll also have to accept Spirit Voices, Bigfoot, and the Loch Ness Monster." confused me -- I wasn't sure which side of the argument the person who said this fell on. The phrase "proof against science" particularly confused me, as I wasn't sure why anyone would consider a TV show to be proof against science. Was he saying that the people who believed the show would also have to accept Spirit Voices (inexplicable caps.. cApiTaliZatioN cAn iNdEEd bReAK tHiNgs aNd mAke it hARder tO UnderstAND)? Because it's a bit of a leap to an atheist like me. I see the logic -- one crazy source vs another -- but for me, it's one crazy source (tv) vs something incomprehensibly impossible (spirit voices). It's like he's making an apples and apples comparison, but for me it feels like apples and oranges.
Obviously under further scrutiny I understood his point - but it was not stated clearly.
I have a feeling that the part you thought I misunderstood was not the part I actually misunderstood -- which colors your comments with a bit of humor for me.
Why is this place filling up with people who think a slashdot comment full of missing punctuation represents the height of judgment?
That would be a pretty cogent argument if we were all still speaking latin. But it's irrelevant. Revolution is an extension of evolution quite literally - extending the word by adding 1 letter to it. I'm sorry you're such a lingual hipster as to not be able to enjoy something so simple without wearing a pedant hat.
I hope that's directed to the guy who wrote the comment, not me for not being able to grok it. I read at an adult level by age 8 :)
Please refer to my other post, the ones with the links that demonstrate that you are wrong. "Discussion"? Maybe. But not among scientists. ABout 90% of scientists in the 1970s were concerned about warming. The percentage has only gotten higher since. But nothing I say -- nor your own anecdotal, confirmation-bias-selected memories -- should matter. Read the articles.
haha, i think she meets def #2: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lie
"the idea that violence can create real and permanent change is mostly untrue in modern times in the Western world" Yup. Nothing violent has created any permanent changes in the world. That's why there's no wars or terrorist attacks.
Learned helplessness. And the only kind of hipster I am is a techno-hipster.
my mom lied to me