The telco did an analysis and determined that the project could not be done profitably.
So, what you're saying is that the telco has now (by beginning their own fibre build) invited a lawsuit from their shareholders because they engaged in a project that they *knew* would not turn a profit?
Please excuse me if I take your post with a rather large grain of salt.
marriage is to promote procreation and stability as a family unit. Gays can't procreate so the rest is moot
The first sentence is flat-out wrong. The second is a non-sequitur.
As a society, long ago, we decided that procreation and stability made for a healthier society.
Umm, I don't know where you got your history from, but there was never any place where *any* species "decided" that procreation "made for a healthier society." Procreation is a biological urge, and if we didn't have it, there would be no society because there would be no people. This is entirely unrelated to the concept of marriage, because marriage is entirely unnecessary for procreation. Similarly, the concept of "stability" is entirely unrelated to one's sexual preference.
Gays contribute nothing to the marriage equation. They are simply looking for a free ride - whatever that means. Likely that means insurance discounts, so on and so on.
Besides being incredibly offensive, all that statement says is that people who don't want to/can't have children should not be allowed to be married.
I have had a vasectomy. So because I can't have children, you're telling me that it be illegal for me to be married to my wife? Where the fuck do you get off telling me what I can and can't do?
I know several women who can't have children. Should it be illegal for them to get married to their boyfriends too?
How does it benefit society as a whole and where does it fit in with a closed-minded bigot's concept of marriage?
There, fixed that for you.
Marriage is about love. Why should two people who love each other (even if they can't have children) be forbidden the rights that others take for granted?
while it doesn't "get rid" of it, it certainly dilutes it enough so as to no longer have meaning for a direct benefit to society.
How, exactly? I keep hearing this, but nobody has ever described why. Why does it "dilute" it, and why does it have to have "meaning"?
If you had even an inkling of understanding, you wouldn't characterize it as "defense".
sex is much more of a temptation than violence is. 99.9% of kids won't commit murder regardless of what movies they watch, but 99.9% of them will make stupid decisions at some point regarding sex
And why do you think that is?
Has it not occurred to you that perhaps it's because they're told from an early age that sex is bad and guns are good, and so therefore want to experiment with the taboo?
Youth is all about rebellion. Tell kids that they shouldn't do something is a surefire way to get them to want to do it.
Why should someone accused of copyright infringement have it any easier (cheaper), than someone accused of running a red light, or breaking a contract, or committing a felony (tort, civil, and criminal examples mixed here deliberately)?
Because (with the possible exception of the red light) in all of those examples, their opponents aren't treating their lawsuits as a revenue center and extorting money from the victims (innocent or not.)
Most Canadian judges are as bad, if not worse, than American judges, when it comes to understanding the "Internets."
Do you have any references for that?
The only other "internets" case I've heard of was the P2P case, wherein the judge told the CRIA to collectively get stuffed.
Now, this isn't exactly scientific, but if you could cite other internet (or technology) related cases that were wrong, I'd appreciate being enlightened.
Well if you believe that God himself actually wanted the Crusades to happen, I could understand that comment.
You should understand that comment irrespective of what I believe god wanted.
GPP said that people who believe in god believe in the value of life. Any holy war proves this statement is incorrect. In fact, since there have been many wars fought in the name of "god" (including - if you believe some notable US politicans - the current US invasion of Iraq), a case could be made that the opposite is true (that people who believe in god value life much less than those who don't.)
What God's followers do in his name is not the same as what it is he wants done by his followers.
Which is completely irrelevant to the discussion of whether such followers value life or not.
Reading the Bible helps clear a lot of these misunderstandings up.
We were going to give you the blue shirt, but that wouldn't tell the audience that you're about to die.
To boldly go, don't you see? It's just a ploy, it's a fucking conspiracy!
The final frontier is just a lie that kills thousands every year!
You and me, don't you see? Brain washed at the fucking Academy.
This red shirt, I'll say it loud - It ain't nothing but a fucking death shroud!
The red shirts are dying The red shirts are dying
The red shirts are dying I ain't lying What they're selling you're buying While the Captain's satisfying his itch in a ditch with some green-skinned bitch And the Federation grows increasingly rich!
The subscription gets you any new release while you're subscribed. For Windows, you need to buy the new OS.
Also, does a Windows subscription cover applications, or do you need to buy them (and support for them) separately?
OB car analogy:
It's like complaining that Red Hat's car costs more money than our MS's bare chassis. By the time you buy the MS Engine, MS Body, MS Wheels, MS Dashboard, MS Steering Wheel, etc, you end up paying more.
I never said or implied that. That is something that you came up with all on your own.
Bullshit. Here is your quote, in it's entirety.
Why would a schedule not be considered "creative"? There are people who are paid to do nothing but come up with schedules. There is no mathematical formula and although it may appear otherwise the programming choices are not just randomly picked.
I don't know how you came to that conclusion. All I said is that there are people who are paid to do that job.
*BOGGLE*
You explicitly listed qualifications for something to be creative, that is "people get paid to do it all day long", and "there is no mathematical formula.
Therefore, according to your own criteria, anything that people get paid to do "all day long", which doesn't require a "mathematical formula" is creative.
Not sure why you chose to latch on to that one sentence
Whether someone is paid to do something or not is entirely irrelevant as to whether it's creative. I wrote stories when I was in school, and nobody paid me for them. Does that mean that I wasn't being creative?
I've marked you as a foe, but please don't take it personally - it just a reminder not to reply to you in the future, as you're too stupid to debate with.
There are people who are paid to do nothing but dig ditches. Is ditch-digging considered "creative" now too?
Nice try
Sorry, I don't think I understand you. Are you now trying to claim that you didn't say that working on anything is creative?
You distinctly said that people are paid to work on something, therefore that is creative. If this isn't what you meant, then you need to explain what you *did* mean, rather than trying to escape by (rather feebly) claiming you didn't say that.
The bottom line is: If being paid to do something is what defines "creative", then anytime anyone is paid to do something (even digging ditches) then that means they are being creative.
You know, whenever I see someone talking about "strong AI" and "weak AI", I'm reminded of ID-iots who talk about "macro evolution" and "micro evolution".
Slashdot Mirror
The telco did an analysis and determined that the project could not be done profitably.
So, what you're saying is that the telco has now (by beginning their own fibre build) invited a lawsuit from their shareholders because they engaged in a project that they *knew* would not turn a profit?
Please excuse me if I take your post with a rather large grain of salt.
marriage is to promote procreation and stability as a family unit. Gays can't procreate so the rest is moot
The first sentence is flat-out wrong. The second is a non-sequitur.
As a society, long ago, we decided that procreation and stability made for a healthier society.
Umm, I don't know where you got your history from, but there was never any place where *any* species "decided" that procreation "made for a healthier society." Procreation is a biological urge, and if we didn't have it, there would be no society because there would be no people. This is entirely unrelated to the concept of marriage, because marriage is entirely unnecessary for procreation. Similarly, the concept of "stability" is entirely unrelated to one's sexual preference.
Gays contribute nothing to the marriage equation. They are simply looking for a free ride - whatever that means. Likely that means insurance discounts, so on and so on.
Besides being incredibly offensive, all that statement says is that people who don't want to/can't have children should not be allowed to be married.
I have had a vasectomy. So because I can't have children, you're telling me that it be illegal for me to be married to my wife? Where the fuck do you get off telling me what I can and can't do?
I know several women who can't have children. Should it be illegal for them to get married to their boyfriends too?
How does it benefit society as a whole and where does it fit in with a closed-minded bigot's concept of marriage?
There, fixed that for you.
Marriage is about love. Why should two people who love each other (even if they can't have children) be forbidden the rights that others take for granted?
while it doesn't "get rid" of it, it certainly dilutes it enough so as to no longer have meaning for a direct benefit to society.
How, exactly? I keep hearing this, but nobody has ever described why. Why does it "dilute" it, and why does it have to have "meaning"?
some of these characters are required to correctly spell ENGLISH words also... æ in Encyclopædia
<quote voice="Homer Simpson">
Why do I need to learn English? I'm never going to England!
</quote>
Most Americans think that the correct way to spell it is "encyclopedia".
next thing you know people are going to have to both purchase an automobile AND pay for gas
So, wait.. your car only runs on gas provided by your dealer? And when the dealer decides to no longer support it, your car stops working?
The show was all about interpersonal intrigue, political maneuvering, war, racism, a few monsters, and encounters with alien races
Funny - I thought it was all about really, really bad acting and crappy CGI.
I don't think Laurie could pull off the British accent.
Umm, is my sarcasm detector broken, or are you completely unaware of Hugh Laurie's work outside of "House"?
In defense of America
If you had even an inkling of understanding, you wouldn't characterize it as "defense".
sex is much more of a temptation than violence is. 99.9% of kids won't commit murder regardless of what movies they watch, but 99.9% of them will make stupid decisions at some point regarding sex
And why do you think that is?
Has it not occurred to you that perhaps it's because they're told from an early age that sex is bad and guns are good, and so therefore want to experiment with the taboo?
Youth is all about rebellion. Tell kids that they shouldn't do something is a surefire way to get them to want to do it.
So, let's see. Middle-aged, powerfully built, intelligent, charismatic, funny but with a serious side, male but not necessarily white.
Jeremy Clarkson! :)
Why should someone accused of copyright infringement have it any easier (cheaper), than someone accused of running a red light, or breaking a contract, or committing a felony (tort, civil, and criminal examples mixed here deliberately)?
Because (with the possible exception of the red light) in all of those examples, their opponents aren't treating their lawsuits as a revenue center and extorting money from the victims (innocent or not.)
Most Canadian judges are as bad, if not worse, than American judges, when it comes to understanding the "Internets."
Do you have any references for that?
The only other "internets" case I've heard of was the P2P case, wherein the judge told the CRIA to collectively get stuffed.
Now, this isn't exactly scientific, but if you could cite other internet (or technology) related cases that were wrong, I'd appreciate being enlightened.
How can doctors get away with this?
They're "getting away" with it because frequently it's in the best interest of their patients.
With the cost of medicine, how dare they make people go out and buy something they don't need.
They don't *make* people go out and do anything.
Most likely, people go to the doctor and expect to walk away with a prescription. The doctor has two choices:
1. give them a placebo, and tell them what to do to really fix the problem (bed rest or more exercise, as applicable to the situation.)
2. explain to them that a pill won't fix anything, and what they need to do to fix the problem.
If the doctor tells them 1, the patient walks away happy.
If the doctor tells them 2, the patient resents the doctor and ignores the advice about what to do to really get healthy.
How about honesty and good bedside manner?
Honesty and good bedside manner don't go very far when people are told by big pharmaceutical companies that there is a pill to cure everything.
It's not a question of where it grips it, it's a simple matter of weight-ratio!
That's funny, I had no idea that Dutch was one of our official languages!
Well if you believe that God himself actually wanted the Crusades to happen, I could understand that comment.
You should understand that comment irrespective of what I believe god wanted.
GPP said that people who believe in god believe in the value of life. Any holy war proves this statement is incorrect. In fact, since there have been many wars fought in the name of "god" (including - if you believe some notable US politicans - the current US invasion of Iraq), a case could be made that the opposite is true (that people who believe in god value life much less than those who don't.)
What God's followers do in his name is not the same as what it is he wants done by his followers.
Which is completely irrelevant to the discussion of whether such followers value life or not.
Reading the Bible helps clear a lot of these misunderstandings up.
I've read the bible. It's OK if you like fiction.
The original poster was saying IF there is a god (of any sort, THEN life has value.)
True.
This seems like a fairly reasonable thing to say.
Not if you have any understanding of history (Crusades, Jihad, and other various wars fought in the name of "God".)
Not everyone who believes in a higher power (and by extension, that life has value)
Umm, I think you have that precisely backwards.
We were going to give you the blue shirt, but that wouldn't tell the audience that you're about to die.
To boldly go, don't you see?
It's just a ploy, it's a fucking conspiracy!
The final frontier is just a lie
that kills thousands every year!
You and me, don't you see?
Brain washed at the fucking Academy.
This red shirt, I'll say it loud -
It ain't nothing but a fucking death shroud!
The red shirts are dying
The red shirts are dying
The red shirts are dying
I ain't lying
What they're selling you're buying
While the Captain's satisfying his itch in a ditch
with some green-skinned bitch
And the Federation grows increasingly rich!
From Warp 11
Both are open source DBMS, right?
So I guess you won't mind if I lump MS Access and Oracle together - they're both closed-source databases, right?
The subscription gets you any new release while you're subscribed. For Windows, you need to buy the new OS.
Also, does a Windows subscription cover applications, or do you need to buy them (and support for them) separately?
OB car analogy:
It's like complaining that Red Hat's car costs more money than our MS's bare chassis. By the time you buy the MS Engine, MS Body, MS Wheels, MS Dashboard, MS Steering Wheel, etc, you end up paying more.
$200K? That can't be right. 11 MP3's are worth that much according to the RIAA.
I'm sure all of these players had nothing on them, so they wouldn't be using the RIAA's numbers. :)
I never said or implied that. That is something that you came up with all on your own.
Bullshit. Here is your quote, in it's entirety.
Why would a schedule not be considered "creative"? There are people who are paid to do nothing but come up with schedules. There is no mathematical formula and although it may appear otherwise the programming choices are not just randomly picked.
I don't know how you came to that conclusion. All I said is that there are people who are paid to do that job.
*BOGGLE*
You explicitly listed qualifications for something to be creative, that is "people get paid to do it all day long", and "there is no mathematical formula.
Therefore, according to your own criteria, anything that people get paid to do "all day long", which doesn't require a "mathematical formula" is creative.
Not sure why you chose to latch on to that one sentence
Whether someone is paid to do something or not is entirely irrelevant as to whether it's creative. I wrote stories when I was in school, and nobody paid me for them. Does that mean that I wasn't being creative?
I've marked you as a foe, but please don't take it personally - it just a reminder not to reply to you in the future, as you're too stupid to debate with.
So if you had, say, 24 hours of programming to fill you wouldn't give it any thought?
Nice try.
There are people who are paid to do nothing but dig ditches. Is ditch-digging considered "creative" now too?
Nice try
Sorry, I don't think I understand you. Are you now trying to claim that you didn't say that working on anything is creative?
You distinctly said that people are paid to work on something, therefore that is creative. If this isn't what you meant, then you need to explain what you *did* mean, rather than trying to escape by (rather feebly) claiming you didn't say that.
The bottom line is: If being paid to do something is what defines "creative", then anytime anyone is paid to do something (even digging ditches) then that means they are being creative.
Why would a schedule not be considered "creative"?
Because there is no creative element.
There are people who are paid to do nothing but come up with schedules.
There are people who are paid to do nothing but dig ditches. Is ditch-digging considered "creative" now too?
Just because someone is paid to do something, doesn't mean it's creative.
You know, whenever I see someone talking about "strong AI" and "weak AI", I'm reminded of ID-iots who talk about "macro evolution" and "micro evolution".
The original ELIZA has been doing this for decades
Not on the web, it hasn't.