I most certainly shall not. I don't consider a brown dwarf to be a real star. I generally don't spend time considering topics related to astronomy at all, as it is widely known that astronomy is a field for children or H1B imports with selective mutism and a penchant for broadway musicals.
To put it in terms you would be more likely to understand, if stars were thespians, a brown dwarf would be on par with Jean Claude Van Damme.
And before you ask, a thespian is what you normies call an actor.
"Why can a teacher not take a group of students to see A Charlie Brown Christmas at a church, but can take those same students to see a lecture on evolution at the science museum?"
Because one is scientific fact and one is a fairytale.
You obviously can't tell which is which, so I'll tell you: RELIGION IS FANTASY.
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state..."
We want to be a free country, so we accept the fact that we need a way to defend it from other countries. We will do this by providing a standing army and state regulated militias (National Guard units). We will provide these with the proper weapons to be able to efectively defend this country from other countries.
"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Now, since we already said we are going to have an army and state regulated militias, and we already said we are going to have to ARM these entities, we need a way for the common people to make sure they can defend themselves from the army and militias of the government in case the government decides to become tyrannical. We will do this by stating that the common people have a right to keep privately owned weapons and that the government has NO RIGHT to stop people from having them. The government has NO RIGHT to even make it difficult for people to have them. The govt has NO RIGHT to charge a license fee, nor to perform a background check, nor to keep a database of who has the weapons, nor to limit the number of weapons a person can have, nor to limit the type of weapons a person can have, nor to limit the amount of ammunition a person can have, nor to in any other way INFRINGE on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. In the simplest and most concise wording, this right SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
Having people who know nothing about technology make case law about technology is like having a Capuchin monkey fix the brakes on your car: cute and funny at first, but ultimately a bad idea that is also highly dangerous.
Ah, did you know the term "square meal" has nothing to do with rectilinear food nor with right-angled crockery? A square meal is a meal that is considered to be well balanced nutritionally speaking. For example, pizza, the ingredients of which quite often contain selections from all four commonly accepted food groups, can easily be passed off as a square meal even though the overwhelming majority of the time the presentation style of this culinary treat is a round format.
Slashdot Mirror
1 2 3 4 is no less secure than 4 t & q, mathematically speaking.
No, the proper plural for asswipe would be Congress.
I most certainly shall not. I don't consider a brown dwarf to be a real star. I generally don't spend time considering topics related to astronomy at all, as it is widely known that astronomy is a field for children or H1B imports with selective mutism and a penchant for broadway musicals.
To put it in terms you would be more likely to understand, if stars were thespians, a brown dwarf would be on par with Jean Claude Van Damme.
And before you ask, a thespian is what you normies call an actor.
"Why can a teacher not take a group of students to see A Charlie Brown Christmas at a church, but can take those same students to see a lecture on evolution at the science museum?"
Because one is scientific fact and one is a fairytale.
You obviously can't tell which is which, so I'll tell you: RELIGION IS FANTASY.
Major Tom
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state..."
We want to be a free country, so we accept the fact that we need a way to defend it from other countries. We will do this by providing a standing army and state regulated militias (National Guard units). We will provide these with the proper weapons to be able to efectively defend this country from other countries.
"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Now, since we already said we are going to have an army and state regulated militias, and we already said we are going to have to ARM these entities, we need a way for the common people to make sure they can defend themselves from the army and militias of the government in case the government decides to become tyrannical. We will do this by stating that the common people have a right to keep privately owned weapons and that the government has NO RIGHT to stop people from having them. The government has NO RIGHT to even make it difficult for people to have them. The govt has NO RIGHT to charge a license fee, nor to perform a background check, nor to keep a database of who has the weapons, nor to limit the number of weapons a person can have, nor to limit the type of weapons a person can have, nor to limit the amount of ammunition a person can have, nor to in any other way INFRINGE on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. In the simplest and most concise wording, this right SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
I hope this makes it clear enough for everyone.
HOKEY POKEY!
This looks like a Hokey Pppokey crowd!
Did anyone else read that as "ray-pee-scan?"
I think the suggestions thus far can be summed up as this:
Stop being a dick.
Please stop.
Having people who know nothing about technology make case law about technology is like having a Capuchin monkey fix the brakes on your car: cute and funny at first, but ultimately a bad idea that is also highly dangerous.
Oh, dear Lord, what fresh hell is this?
The iPads. Seriously, Beardo, you need to pay closer attention.
Why on Earth would anyone want to miss out on the shear joy of manually working through a maths problem by using a calculator?
Ah, did you know the term "square meal" has nothing to do with rectilinear food nor with right-angled crockery? A square meal is a meal that is considered to be well balanced nutritionally speaking. For example, pizza, the ingredients of which quite often contain selections from all four commonly accepted food groups, can easily be passed off as a square meal even though the overwhelming majority of the time the presentation style of this culinary treat is a round format.