I was 13 when I moved up from sticking knives in sockets and cut plugs in the outlets.
I found dead hemlock stems were very stiff, light, and, by leaving a bit of root on the end while trimming the leaves and flowers off the stems, I could make a javelin I could launch a good 100yds. at least.
So there I am tossing it over the highest wires of the telephone pole, when the javelin catches on the near high-voltage wire, then falls over onto the far high-voltage wire.
When it looked like it was bursting into flame I turned to run in the house, and saw the house light up in a big blue flash (nice noise effects, too)
Every house in the 'hood flickered, and a few minutes passed when a PG&E drone went by...
So, what if I did participate in some discussion that was served out of Saudi Arabia, and was critical of Islam (Saudi Govt: not saying I am, just hypothetical. heheh).
I hope he's acquitted. I hope they are disallowed from using laden terminology (like, pirate) in the trial. I hope the jury understands that the unreasonable stance taken is grounds in itself for refusal to convict.
Though how you came to the conclusion I was even trying to define athiest in atempting to help the above spot the conceptual confusion he apeared to have is uncertain, but these things happen in text only conversations.
Ah. So you were using "You" in the collective sense, meaning "Him" (or the post I was responding to initially.)
In that case, I suggest your response would have been better served had you attached it to his post, not mine.:)
Because I am not "getting lost on semantic differences", I was sketching out the logic problem within the original poster's contention.
I only wish the mods were using their heads like you appear to be.
Your definition of atheism is false because it fails to exclude or distinguish itself from agnosticism (which is the lack of belief in the existence of gods).
You must say "atheists do not believe in the existence of god(s)". You may not say "atheists lack the belief in god(s)" because that definition would include agnostics.
Your definition would require that we provide the same convenience to the theists, whereupon agnosticism will disappear entirely.
Please stop trying to reform Atheism. It's as dead as Theism.
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't there an Asimov book about small darting flybots that release a pellet of digested fly material?
The article was remarkably content free, is there a better place to look for information?
d00d, it's called areole photography
But the fact it's his job doesn't influence you...
oookay.
I was 13 when I moved up from sticking knives in sockets and cut plugs in the outlets.
I found dead hemlock stems were very stiff, light, and, by leaving a bit of root on the end while trimming the leaves and flowers off the stems, I could make a javelin I could launch a good 100yds. at least.
So there I am tossing it over the highest wires of the telephone pole, when the javelin catches on the near high-voltage wire, then falls over onto the far high-voltage wire.
When it looked like it was bursting into flame I turned to run in the house, and saw the house light up in a big blue flash (nice noise effects, too)
Every house in the 'hood flickered, and a few minutes passed when a PG&E drone went by...
I often gaffed at people who owned Lexmark printers
Isn't that dangerous?
You sound like you are swayed by other people's prejudices without even discovering their cause. There are reasons to dislike Lexmark.
I thought politics.slashdot.org was just set up for this non-online stuff.
Think sneakernet.
Even if he's not up for re-election, it's the natural behavior of a politician.
You don't think it has anything to do with the false claims made by diebold, or their failure to place certified machines in the voting districts?
Or the wild insecurities in the system?
You're subject to extradition whenever the US government agrees to extradite you.
You are telling me that my life and the that of others is governed not by laws, but by some guy in a black robe and an elaborate ritual.
Wow, you are really macho. I'm just so impressed. Too bad you are humor impaired, otherwise you could be governator of California someday, too.
Computational Grid is working out the logistics, and has a software package that'll get you on the grid.
I don't think it was the parent posters intent to compare the warez guy to Osama
He was comparing the extradition of OBL to the extradition of the warez guy. I think this is absurd.
I'm risking bedevilment, I know, but I must say, I'm losing faith in this moderation system:
Moderation -1
30% Troll
40% Flamebait
30% Insightful
in re: parent post.
"Your Rights Online" should be "Your Rights On the Line"
So, what if I did participate in some discussion that was served out of Saudi Arabia, and was critical of Islam (Saudi Govt: not saying I am, just hypothetical. heheh).
Would I then be subject to extradition?
I'm not suggesting he's a hero when I ask this, but don't "common criminals" usually have a profit motive?
This is way over the top.
So, things take on a whole new meaning because they are done "on the Internet"?
/., I can be extradited?
So if I say Islamics are doofuses on
oh oh.
Um, because a non-profit warez outfit isn't a crime by traditional definitions? Because comparing warez d00dz to 9/11 is laughably absurd?
That logic?
You're equating the activities of these people with Colombian Drug Dealers?
Sheesh.
I hope he's acquitted. I hope they are disallowed from using laden terminology (like, pirate) in the trial. I hope the jury understands that the unreasonable stance taken is grounds in itself for refusal to convict.
Chomsky's influence on, say D.E. Knuth for example, and Computer Science in general, is well-known.
Chomsky is evidently way bigger than you think.
I think you mean 28.5% below the limit.
Doesn't that mean everything we know about physics is wrong, and there is a God, afterall?
jk
Though how you came to the conclusion I was even trying to define athiest in atempting to help the above spot the conceptual confusion he apeared to have is uncertain, but these things happen in text only conversations.
:)
Ah. So you were using "You" in the collective sense, meaning "Him" (or the post I was responding to initially.)
In that case, I suggest your response would have been better served had you attached it to his post, not mine.
Because I am not "getting lost on semantic differences", I was sketching out the logic problem within the original poster's contention.
I only wish the mods were using their heads like you appear to be.
Thank you.
others have already answered your "argument" so I'll just log in with my me too.
I think you are suffering from logical problems.
Your definition of atheism is false because it fails to exclude or distinguish itself from agnosticism (which is the lack of belief in the existence of gods).
You must say "atheists do not believe in the existence of god(s)". You may not say "atheists lack the belief in god(s)" because that definition would include agnostics.
Your definition would require that we provide the same convenience to the theists, whereupon agnosticism will disappear entirely.
Please stop trying to reform Atheism. It's as dead as Theism.