Except from each other, of course. Else I could just argue that only invasions from outside of Earth should count as external invasions of the Middle East.
Wow. I think you've just given me a much better understanding of where you're coming from. Thanks for clearing things up for me.
I believe that's the second time I've made that point, and I don't think I've changed my position on anything during this exchange.
Keep in mind what I said:
Europe used to be trapped in ancient tribal animosities too. They changed for the better.
So yes, Europe used to fight amongst themselves and now they don't.We pretty much have the same situation as before.
We pretty much have the same situatuion as before? Talk about making noise. For the third time: Europe stopped fighting amongst themselves because stability was forced upon them. You seem to think that somehow makes Europe superior to countries in the Middle East - which was the very first claim you made in this thread.
Sorry, that argument just doesn't hold water. I've pointed this out to you multiple times, and you continue to sidestep the issue with bullshit about the Arab Spring and European revolutions.
BTW, the Mongols and the Moors were ejected from Europe around 1300, and the Ottomans never really made it past the Balkans. This left the bulk of Europe invasion free for centuries.
Look, *you* are the one holding up Europe as some kind of shining example of how a people can change for the better (as opposed to "sandniggers" who can't).
The reality is that the only period of any length where Europeans weren't fighting amongst themselves has been after WWII, and it wasn't because Europe magically changed for the better of its own accord.
Why are you even making noises here? You lost your own argument
Why? Because you said so? Apparently you forgot your own statement:
Do you really have to ask that question when history demonstrates many invasions up to living memory?
You've mentioned one invasion. If you want to include WWI, that would be two invasions. But I guess you have different definition of the word "many" than I do.
Europe used to be trapped in ancient tribal animosities too. They changed for the better.
The fact is, Europe did nothing but fight amongst itself for centuries. It wasn't until the "invasion" to end German aggression that Europe changed. And they didn't do it on their own; "changing for the better" was imposed upon them.
So no, it isn't just "sandniggers" who are incapable of democracy.
Could it be that they changed for the better because they didn't have invading forces fucking with them for generations?
Do you really have to ask that question when history demonstrates many invasions up to living memory?
Really? When was the last time the Europe we know today was invaded by outside forces? To me, the Allied invasions of the world wars don't qualify because those were actions of liberation. Even if you want to include the Allied invasions, when was the last time an external armed force entered Europe before WWI?
Europe used to be trapped in ancient tribal animosities too. They changed for the better.
Not at all. It's the beginning of a sentence. Capitalizing "Democracy" is the weird thing.
Thanks for being pedantic. I will give your subsequent comments the weight they deserve.
Sure, it does.
Are you saying that mi's comment has merit? Or are you saying mi's comment is ignorant? I don't think it can be both. Do you need to re-read the conversation?
Europe used to be trapped in ancient tribal animosities too. They changed for the better.
Could it be that they changed for the better because they didn't have invading forces fucking with them for generations?
Like perhaps a formal declaration of war from Congress?
That's so unlikely that the probability might as well be zero. (yes, I know you're probably aware of that)
The reason we don't call it "war" any more is because the legislative and executive don't want to call it "war". They want to use the more politically correct term "Overseas Contingency Operations".
("politically correct" in this context meaning "don't upset the proles; it's better to confuse them")
All that matters is the legal definition. The general population gets a great many things wrong.
Guess what? It's entirely possible to change the law. What happens if the anti Second Amendment crowd holds the Presidency and achieves a majority in Congress? If they pass a new law that adds semi autos to the banned list, will you still believe the legal definition is the only one that matters?
"The company has developed a synthetic alternative to spider silk by engineering proteins identical to the natural threads stretched across the nooks in your basement."
I read this as saying the lab has re-created the actual silk, not just the protein building blocks.
I don't know anything about spider silk or molecular biology - that's why I asked. Given the quote from TFA, I don't think asking the question again is unreasonable - much less dishonest or rude.
None of the rifles you linked to are assault rifles
I guess it's a good thing I didn't claim they were (I was joking in my OP)
and the definition of what an assault rifle is is most definitely settled.
Among the military and gun enthusiasts, perhaps. Perhaps even by legal standards. Settled among the general population? Not so much. If you care to look at how some online dictionaries define "assault rifle", take a look hereand here and here.
The reality is this: if I were to walk down the street with my AR-15 slung over my shoulder, a good chunk of onlookers will think "that's an assault rifle" (even here in Texas!).
This vendor has absolutely no idea of what an assault rifle is
I seriously doubt that. BTW, it's not just Grab a Gun calling these weapons assault rifles. There are many vendors doing so.
or is attempting to capitalize on idiots who think they're buying a rifle capable of select fire.
No, they're capitalizing on people who think that a *semi auto* rifle IS an assault rifle if it looks scary enough - and look...even the dictionary says so!
If I'm ignorant about something, I'm not afraid to ask questions. If I'm wrong about something, I am more than happy to admit it. Sorry you confuse that with stupidity.
I wonder where I could've gotten the idea that lab in question had created actual spider silk and not just it's protein building blocks? Oh yeah, it's in the title of the article and the TFA's headline.
Spider Silk Finally Ready For Commercialization
A Bay Area Startup Spins Lab-Grown Silk
All I did was honestly ask for some clarification, and the AC who responded to that request wrote a clear explanation that clarified the matter for me. I wasn't trying to be dishonest, and I certainly wasn't trying to put words into your mouth.
Your reply, on the other hand, began with a patronizing insult:
Reading is fundamental. Re-read what I wrote.
Or I guess I'll bring it down to your level.
If you would have left those first three sentences out of you post, I would have considered that a polite reply and I would have understood the differences you originally pointed out. But you didn't leave them out and unfortunately, I felt insulted and responded to you in kind. That was my bad, and I apologize.
These folks have come up with an idea to market a threat with some (but not all) the properties of spider silk. Using yeast. While I am more than willing to admit that this material sounds interesting, it is most certainly not spider silk.
But it's not the first time we've seen an utterly misleading headline in both the article and in the Slashdot post.
TFA states "The company has developed a synthetic alternative to spider silk by engineering proteins identical to the natural threads stretched across the nooks in your basement."
Care to list the properties that the natural silk has that the synthetic silk doesn't?
Because if you actually read what GP wrote you might notice that "waze" (which is not a dictionary word) sounds identical to "ways" (which is a dictionary word).
What if I want to launch waze or lyft? Those aren't dictionary words either, but they live on my smartphone along side Siri/Cortana/Hound etc.
Interestingly enough, none of the guns you linked to were selective fire (which is part of the definition of "assault rifle").
Every one of the weapons I linked to are described as "assault rifles"; my point being that the definition of "assault rifle" is hardly a settled matter. The fact is, it's not just the lefty gun control types labeling scary looking guns "assault rifles" - it's the dealers themselves.
(BTW, I am a strong supporter of gun rights and the Second Amendment)
A skilled logician like yourself should know that just because I wasn't pedantic with the other guy, doesn't mean I wasn't with you. Furthermore, my reply to you fits the definition of "pedantic" exactly (contrary to MechaStreisand's usage of "shill").
Look, I've already admitted to being a pedant and a troll, what more do you want? Are you so butthurt over being corrected that you have to argue that someone else's mistake in this thread is worse than yours? What are you, a nine year old?
See? See what I'm doing now? It's called "trolling".
In Internet slang, a troll (/trol/,/trl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.
What you or some candy ass Washington lawyer want to call 'em is your own durn bidness. Down here in Texas we know what these guns are, and they sure ain't the pea-shooter Glocks we give our kids to play with.
Worse, the practice — and the bullshit laws "authorizing" it — are in direct violation of the Fifth Amendment, which purports to protect us against this exact practice (emphasis mine): "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated".
Better re-read the Constitution. That's not the Fifth Amendment.
Slashdot Mirror
Dude, if you needed a CUDA card, the 980ti is DOGSHIT compared to a K2 GRID.
Only in double precision.
Quit fronting and admit you don't know jack about hardware.
His hardware choice might make perfect sense, depending on his use case. Perhaps you should lighten up a little.
Except from each other, of course. Else I could just argue that only invasions from outside of Earth should count as external invasions of the Middle East.
Wow. I think you've just given me a much better understanding of where you're coming from. Thanks for clearing things up for me.
Cheers!
Quite a change from what you wrote earlier.
I believe that's the second time I've made that point, and I don't think I've changed my position on anything during this exchange.
Keep in mind what I said:
Europe used to be trapped in ancient tribal animosities too. They changed for the better.
So yes, Europe used to fight amongst themselves and now they don't.We pretty much have the same situation as before.
We pretty much have the same situatuion as before? Talk about making noise. For the third time: Europe stopped fighting amongst themselves because stability was forced upon them. You seem to think that somehow makes Europe superior to countries in the Middle East - which was the very first claim you made in this thread.
Sorry, that argument just doesn't hold water. I've pointed this out to you multiple times, and you continue to sidestep the issue with bullshit about the Arab Spring and European revolutions.
BTW, the Mongols and the Moors were ejected from Europe around 1300, and the Ottomans never really made it past the Balkans. This left the bulk of Europe invasion free for centuries.
Look, *you* are the one holding up Europe as some kind of shining example of how a people can change for the better (as opposed to "sandniggers" who can't).
The reality is that the only period of any length where Europeans weren't fighting amongst themselves has been after WWII, and it wasn't because Europe magically changed for the better of its own accord.
Why are you even making noises here? You lost your own argument
Why? Because you said so? Apparently you forgot your own statement:
Do you really have to ask that question when history demonstrates many invasions up to living memory?
You've mentioned one invasion. If you want to include WWI, that would be two invasions. But I guess you have different definition of the word "many" than I do.
Europe used to be trapped in ancient tribal animosities too. They changed for the better.
The fact is, Europe did nothing but fight amongst itself for centuries. It wasn't until the "invasion" to end German aggression that Europe changed. And they didn't do it on their own; "changing for the better" was imposed upon them.
So no, it isn't just "sandniggers" who are incapable of democracy.
Could it be that they changed for the better because they didn't have invading forces fucking with them for generations?
Do you really have to ask that question when history demonstrates many invasions up to living memory?
Really? When was the last time the Europe we know today was invaded by outside forces? To me, the Allied invasions of the world wars don't qualify because those were actions of liberation. Even if you want to include the Allied invasions, when was the last time an external armed force entered Europe before WWI?
Europe used to be trapped in ancient tribal animosities too. They changed for the better.
Only since WWII.
strange that you capitalized the S
Not at all. It's the beginning of a sentence. Capitalizing "Democracy" is the weird thing.
Thanks for being pedantic. I will give your subsequent comments the weight they deserve.
Sure, it does.
Are you saying that mi's comment has merit? Or are you saying mi's comment is ignorant? I don't think it can be both. Do you need to re-read the conversation?
Europe used to be trapped in ancient tribal animosities too. They changed for the better.
Could it be that they changed for the better because they didn't have invading forces fucking with them for generations?
Please, explain, how the above is different from "Sandniggers aren't capable of Democracy."
Thank you.
IMO, the only difference is your substitution of "tribal" with the term "Sandniggers". (strange that you capitalized the S)
The GP's comment has merit, yours only proves your ignorance.
Like perhaps a formal declaration of war from Congress?
That's so unlikely that the probability might as well be zero. (yes, I know you're probably aware of that)
The reason we don't call it "war" any more is because the legislative and executive don't want to call it "war". They want to use the more politically correct term "Overseas Contingency Operations".
("politically correct" in this context meaning "don't upset the proles; it's better to confuse them")
Then my wife pointed out that the mini-14 was on the exempt list....
Good for her! Sounds like you picked a winner. : )
All that matters is the legal definition. The general population gets a great many things wrong.
Guess what? It's entirely possible to change the law. What happens if the anti Second Amendment crowd holds the Presidency and achieves a majority in Congress? If they pass a new law that adds semi autos to the banned list, will you still believe the legal definition is the only one that matters?
"The company has developed a synthetic alternative to spider silk by engineering proteins identical to the natural threads stretched across the nooks in your basement."
I read this as saying the lab has re-created the actual silk, not just the protein building blocks.
I don't know anything about spider silk or molecular biology - that's why I asked. Given the quote from TFA, I don't think asking the question again is unreasonable - much less dishonest or rude.
None of the rifles you linked to are assault rifles
I guess it's a good thing I didn't claim they were (I was joking in my OP)
and the definition of what an assault rifle is is most definitely settled.
Among the military and gun enthusiasts, perhaps. Perhaps even by legal standards. Settled among the general population? Not so much. If you care to look at how some online dictionaries define "assault rifle", take a look hereand here and here.
The reality is this: if I were to walk down the street with my AR-15 slung over my shoulder, a good chunk of onlookers will think "that's an assault rifle" (even here in Texas!).
This vendor has absolutely no idea of what an assault rifle is
I seriously doubt that. BTW, it's not just Grab a Gun calling these weapons assault rifles. There are many vendors doing so.
or is attempting to capitalize on idiots who think they're buying a rifle capable of select fire.
No, they're capitalizing on people who think that a *semi auto* rifle IS an assault rifle if it looks scary enough - and look...even the dictionary says so!
If I'm ignorant about something, I'm not afraid to ask questions. If I'm wrong about something, I am more than happy to admit it. Sorry you confuse that with stupidity.
I wonder where I could've gotten the idea that lab in question had created actual spider silk and not just it's protein building blocks? Oh yeah, it's in the title of the article and the TFA's headline.
Spider Silk Finally Ready For Commercialization
A Bay Area Startup Spins Lab-Grown Silk
All I did was honestly ask for some clarification, and the AC who responded to that request wrote a clear explanation that clarified the matter for me. I wasn't trying to be dishonest, and I certainly wasn't trying to put words into your mouth.
Your reply, on the other hand, began with a patronizing insult:
Reading is fundamental. Re-read what I wrote. Or I guess I'll bring it down to your level.
If you would have left those first three sentences out of you post, I would have considered that a polite reply and I would have understood the differences you originally pointed out. But you didn't leave them out and unfortunately, I felt insulted and responded to you in kind. That was my bad, and I apologize.
Having a bad day, are we? It was an honest question politely asked. No need to be a dick about it.
Structure; Natural silk owes most of its properties to the structure the proteins are woven into at nano-scale.
As I noted above, TFA claims the proteins are identical. What makes you think they are not?
These folks have come up with an idea to market a threat with some (but not all) the properties of spider silk. Using yeast. While I am more than willing to admit that this material sounds interesting, it is most certainly not spider silk. But it's not the first time we've seen an utterly misleading headline in both the article and in the Slashdot post.
TFA states "The company has developed a synthetic alternative to spider silk by engineering proteins identical to the natural threads stretched across the nooks in your basement."
Care to list the properties that the natural silk has that the synthetic silk doesn't?
I'm 12 and what is this
If you're 12, this is a real opportunity for you to shoot webs from the wrists of your Spider Man costume.
Because if you actually read what GP wrote you might notice that "waze" (which is not a dictionary word) sounds identical to "ways" (which is a dictionary word).
What if I want to launch waze or lyft? Those aren't dictionary words either, but they live on my smartphone along side Siri/Cortana/Hound etc.
Interestingly enough, none of the guns you linked to were selective fire (which is part of the definition of "assault rifle").
Every one of the weapons I linked to are described as "assault rifles"; my point being that the definition of "assault rifle" is hardly a settled matter. The fact is, it's not just the lefty gun control types labeling scary looking guns "assault rifles" - it's the dealers themselves.
(BTW, I am a strong supporter of gun rights and the Second Amendment)
A skilled logician like yourself should know that just because I wasn't pedantic with the other guy, doesn't mean I wasn't with you. Furthermore, my reply to you fits the definition of "pedantic" exactly (contrary to MechaStreisand's usage of "shill").
Look, I've already admitted to being a pedant and a troll, what more do you want? Are you so butthurt over being corrected that you have to argue that someone else's mistake in this thread is worse than yours? What are you, a nine year old?
See? See what I'm doing now? It's called "trolling".
In Internet slang, a troll (/trol/, /trl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.
But by all means, keep feeding me!
Its not an assault rifle. Those have been banned nationwide since 1986
Pardner, I can go by my local "Grab a Gun" and buy any one of dozens of assault rifles.
What you or some candy ass Washington lawyer want to call 'em is your own durn bidness. Down here in Texas we know what these guns are, and they sure ain't the pea-shooter Glocks we give our kids to play with.
Yee Haw! [gunshots]
Shill? No. I'm more of a troll.
In this particular case, I was simply being pedantic. This is slashdot after all.
Worse, the practice — and the bullshit laws "authorizing" it — are in direct violation of the Fifth Amendment, which purports to protect us against this exact practice (emphasis mine): "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated".
Better re-read the Constitution. That's not the Fifth Amendment.