The evidence put forward is the mountains of historic text describing miracles etc from years gone by. New Delhi, Sep 12 (PTI) The BJP today accused the Congress-led UPA government of "blasphemy" by telling the Supreme Court that there was no historical evidence to establish the existence of Lord Rama or the other characters in Ramayana.
"This is sheer blasphemy," senior BJP leader Vijay Kumar Malhotra said reacting to an affidavit filed by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) rejecting the claim of the existence of the "Ramsetu" or Adam's bridge in the area where the the Sethusamudram project was under construction.
"It's an insult to the Hindu faith. We also wonder why Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Congress chief Sonia Gandhi have been going for the Dussehra festival if their government does not believe in Lord Rama's existence," he said.
The BJP and other constituents of the Sangh Parivar are opposing the Sethusamudram project saying it would damage an undersea bridge believed to be built by Lord Rama.
"Today, the government in its affidavit says there is no evidence to prove the bridge was built by Lord Rama or that Lord Rama ever existed. This is an attack on Hindu sentiments, a ferocious one," Malhotra said.
Believing in God has made me feel good at times; it's also made me feel bad at times. Is it logical to believe in God just because it makes you warm and fuzzy inside? Is it logical to disbelieve in God just because you're life is "shit"? These questions are meaningless because they are merely sentimental. God exists or does not exist however we feel about Him.
I never understand how judeo-christian religions end up with monotheism, when the old testament has many gods. The lord your god names a few (Moloch, Ashera, the baal of Peor), and forbids you from worshiping them, or any other god but him, because he's a jealous god. He doesn't say "those are false gods", he says that he's the only one you're allowed to worship.
How "I'm the only god you are allowed to worship" turns into "I'm the only god" baffles me somewhat... aside from the usefulness of the emotionally potent oversimplification , that is.
Precisely. Unfortunately for Ballmer, if he had said 'analyse' or 'parse' it wouldn't sound nearly as sexy as 'read'. FUD works man, he says "google reads your email", that goes around in the press, and then the uninformed think "OMFG Google reads my mail! I'd better stick to those non-mail reading websites that Microsoft was nice enough to put as default on my internet!"
I still occasionally get people like those telling me "iTunes costs money!". For some reason, explaining to them the difference between the iTunes Store and the iTunes free player doesn't undo the harm that the FUD did to their fragile brains.
How long until advertisers discover that it's more profitable to withhold information about cheap or steeply discounted products from potential customers who've previously received emails from luxury car manufacturers, for example? I don't know if it's possible with the present generation of Google's technology, but is there anything ion the Gmail terms and conditions that prevent it?
They use keywords in the email to display advertising that was fed these keywords as triggers. Your email history is not taken into consideration (unless the TOS has been altered, and I pray they do not alter it further).
But if it were the case, at least we could use it to hack away the ads we don't want by asking a question from a luxury car seller (can I get the seats in genuine tiger skin and the dashboard in solid ivory), knowing that their reply would scare away the che4p v14gra spam;)
We see X-wings in atmo in the movies, but for some reason people feel compelled to ignore that and say "it's a spaceship, aerodynamics don't count" and others see this and instead of modding it down for being obviously wrong or ignoring it, they mod that crap up.
You guys call yourselves nerds? Dorks, maybe, but nerds would know x-wings can land and take off in atmospheres.
maybe? Lorry is another one. Mind you, any American who can't manage that kind of translation is incredibly ignorant. When I read the book, it took me ages to figure out what the hell a lorry is. Ok, I could have researched the word to find out it's a damn truck, but man, a truck sounds right, it's a macho word full of consonants. Perfect to describe a big dangerous thing that does heavy lifting. "Lorry" sounds like a girl's name, I kept trying to picture something girly. I think the narration had to describe normal truck operations (delivering heavy things, endangering the lives of pedestrians, changing gears and making loud noises) before I figured it out.
And I'm not even a USAmerican, eh!
And no, I don't know why I *had* to figure it out from context, I just did:-\
You should have asked if the plane can combine with others to form a superior robot! Sheesh, what's wrong with you realists? Well duh! That's like asking if it's gonna have a landing gear.
crows that raise a chick or two in my neighborhood each year. Around May/June they get real cranky as the chicks start leaving the nest and hanging around my backyard. What is interesting is that the parents will land in a tree branch directly above me and then proceed to pluck twigs and drop them on me. While a lot of people seem to really dislike crows, I personally am enthralled by their ability to grasp just exactly what sort of thing might make me leave the premises. My dad found a stash of nuts in a hollow in a trees' roots at the park once, he was poking at it when something hit his head. There was a squirrel up in the tree, chucking acorns at him : ) The lil' bugger kept going until we left his stash alone.
Right, because making a coherent argument is too much work. Here's the original thing you said:
Not a single person in the history of mankind [wikipedia.org] has smoked himself to death with Cannabis, ever. That's an intellectually dishonest thing to say, since it implies that somehow overdosis is the only way one could die from smoking cannabis. It's not dishonest because I compared it to people who die only from alcohol poisoning.
What is dishonest is saying that people high on pot can fall out of windows... go do some research, compare the amount of people who fall out of windows just drunk to those who do it just high. Don't expect the rate of accidental death to be anywhere near as dramatic for Cannabis as for alcohol though.
If you were honest, I wouldn't have to tell you this, you trolling tool.
I agree, calling this currency intergalactic might be called hubris. It's more likely to be buzzwordism and ignorance than actual hubris. Intergalactic is more bigger, and more biggerer is more betterer!
I can't be the only geek here annoyed by the casual use of intergalactic. We haven't even made one interplanetary trip yet, so interstellar is still far, far away, and intergalactic isn't even in the realm of conceivable projects!
it's kind of stupid saying nobody ever died from taking drugs, even if you're in favor of this particular one. It's excessively idiotic to put words in my mouth. STFU and DIAF.
Fucking 'tard replied to a post where I list the annual death toll of a legal drug, tries to strawman his way into replying to "no one ever died from drugs"? You are an intellectual midget, consider ending your pathetic existence, you're using up the oxygen worthwhile people could put to better use: Go eat a frisbee.
It also turns people into insane axe murderers, hopelessly, on the first toke!!!!11!! It induces psychotic episodes in some people, yeah. What's your point? My point is you're spewing propaganda that does not represent reality, you tool.
That might be but plenty a people might have crashed cars or jumped out of windows. It also turns people into insane axe murderers, hopelessly, on the first toke!!!!11!!
it's less harmful than alcohol, which is legal. I don't know enough say for sure that marijuana is less harmful Not a single person in the history of mankind has smoked himself to death with Cannabis, ever.
But with booze (in the United States alone): The annual average number of deaths for which alcohol poisoning was listed as an underlying cause was 317, with an age-adjusted death rate of 0.11 per 100,000 population. An average of 1,076 additional deaths included alcohol poisoning as a contributing cause, bringing the total number of deaths with any mention of alcohol poisoning to 1,393 per year (0.49 per 100,000 population).
The debate over whether marijuana should be recreationally legal, whether its use commonly endangers others (say, driving under the influence), and what any penalties should be is heavily clouded by this problem. It also makes the whole drug problem harder because it makes the entire drug classification system look partisan and useless, which, to some extent, it is exactly that. It results in a loss of respect for the system.
A lot of loss of respect for this obviously corrupt and dishonest system. Indeed.
Regarding the latest red herring (driving), the studies done on that have hilarious results: Instead of proving that drug-taking while driving increased the risk of accidents, researchers found that the mellowing effects of cannabis made drivers more cautious and so less likely to drive dangerously.
It is now illegal to eat pot in the USA because (I kid you not) smoking tobacco causes cancer. Documentation please... See this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_rescheduling_in_the_United_States#Schedule_I for background on the classification of Cannabis, and I can't find the exact quote from the late 90's reclassification denial, but basically they said it should remain in schedule I because: Marijuana contains more than 400 chemicals, including most of the harmful substances found in tobacco smoke. Smoking one marijuana cigarette deposits about four times more tar into the lungs than a filtered tobacco cigarette. (notice that one delivery method without filter is selectively compared with a filtered method for the other substance)
What is really interresting about this is that not only do they totally ignore the fact that pot can be eaten (not exclusively smoked), and that it too can be filtered (water pipes, etc), but that there are no studies that show an increase in cacer from smoking Cannabis, in fact, some of the studies done show a decrease in cancer incidence from people smoking pot, because while nicotine is a cancer-causing violent poison, THC is a cancer-reducing psychotrope with no know toxicity level (it is impossible to have a lethal overdose of THC). But they talk about the other substances, besides from nicotine, that are also present and nasty... and assume that no one ever filters them out, or simply bypass their creation by cooking it instead of burning it.
It is illegal in spite of all available science, it was made illegal temporarily in waiting for this evidence, but once the evidence came, it was ignored. The law is a clear fraud, and a deadly one at that: Peter Alexander McWilliams (August 5, 1949 - June 14, 2000) was a writer and cannabis activist. A vocal supporter of medical cannabis due to being terminally ill with AIDS and cancer, McWilliams was investigated by the Federal Drug Enforcement Administration and convicted for violating federal marijuana laws, even though medical marijuana was legal under California state law. He later choked to death on his own vomit when he was forced to switch from cannabis to Marinol in order to remain free on bond pending sentencing. No honest man should stand for this travesty.
illegal for recreational use... I could be wrong At the federal level, it is considered illegal for all uses. It's classified in the same bracket as heroin.
The illegality of Cannabis is one of the greatest fraud of our time.
No, I'm pretty sure there's no fraud involved. It actually IS illegal. You have not been defrauded, the laws actually are as written. Or is that not what you actually meant? So you do think that smoking one marijuhana cigarette will render the smoker hopelessly addicted, and violently insane, and that a rise in its use would lead to a wave of axe murders? Because those are the fraudulent reasons for which it was first made illegal, provisionally, pending a revue. When revues were done, and said that it shouldn't be classified in the same category as heroin, new fraudulent reasons to keep it illegal were invented. When these were scientifically proven false, new fraudulent reasons were invented, etc.
It is now illegal to eat pot in the USA because (I kid you not) smoking tobacco causes cancer.
There's plenty of reasons to re-invent electronically-assisted voting (I like the also-spits-out-paper variation, myself), but it really doesn't help the cause when - to a casual newsreader - an important test case seems to be about weed. The illegality of Cannabis is one of the greatest fraud of our time. The fact that it is connected to the case of a brave new world of election fraud doesn't diminish anything.
Slashdot Mirror
"This is sheer blasphemy," senior BJP leader Vijay Kumar Malhotra said reacting to an affidavit filed by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) rejecting the claim of the existence of the "Ramsetu" or Adam's bridge in the area where the the Sethusamudram project was under construction.
"It's an insult to the Hindu faith. We also wonder why Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Congress chief Sonia Gandhi have been going for the Dussehra festival if their government does not believe in Lord Rama's existence," he said.
The BJP and other constituents of the Sangh Parivar are opposing the Sethusamudram project saying it would damage an undersea bridge believed to be built by Lord Rama.
"Today, the government in its affidavit says there is no evidence to prove the bridge was built by Lord Rama or that Lord Rama ever existed. This is an attack on Hindu sentiments, a ferocious one," Malhotra said.
Believing in God has made me feel good at times; it's also made me feel bad at times. Is it logical to believe in God just because it makes you warm and fuzzy inside? Is it logical to disbelieve in God just because you're life is "shit"? These questions are meaningless because they are merely sentimental. God exists or does not exist however we feel about Him.
I never understand how judeo-christian religions end up with monotheism, when the old testament has many gods.The lord your god names a few (Moloch, Ashera, the baal of Peor), and forbids you from worshiping them, or any other god but him, because he's a jealous god. He doesn't say "those are false gods", he says that he's the only one you're allowed to worship.
How "I'm the only god you are allowed to worship" turns into "I'm the only god" baffles me somewhat... aside from the usefulness of the emotionally potent oversimplification , that is.
I still occasionally get people like those telling me "iTunes costs money!". For some reason, explaining to them the difference between the iTunes Store and the iTunes free player doesn't undo the harm that the FUD did to their fragile brains.
How long until advertisers discover that it's more profitable to withhold information about cheap or steeply discounted products from potential customers who've previously received emails from luxury car manufacturers, for example? I don't know if it's possible with the present generation of Google's technology, but is there anything ion the Gmail terms and conditions that prevent it?
They use keywords in the email to display advertising that was fed these keywords as triggers.Your email history is not taken into consideration (unless the TOS has been altered, and I pray they do not alter it further).
But if it were the case, at least we could use it to hack away the ads we don't want by asking a question from a luxury car seller (can I get the seats in genuine tiger skin and the dashboard in solid ivory), knowing that their reply would scare away the che4p v14gra spam
We see X-wings in atmo in the movies, but for some reason people feel compelled to ignore that and say "it's a spaceship, aerodynamics don't count" and others see this and instead of modding it down for being obviously wrong or ignoring it, they mod that crap up.
You guys call yourselves nerds? Dorks, maybe, but nerds would know x-wings can land and take off in atmospheres.
And I'm not even a USAmerican, eh!
And no, I don't know why I *had* to figure it out from context, I just did
Sheesh, what's wrong with you realists? Well duh! That's like asking if it's gonna have a landing gear.
What is interesting is that the parents will land in a tree branch directly above me and then proceed to pluck twigs and drop them on me.
While a lot of people seem to really dislike crows, I personally am enthralled by their ability to grasp just exactly what sort of thing might make me leave the premises. My dad found a stash of nuts in a hollow in a trees' roots at the park once, he was poking at it when something hit his head.
There was a squirrel up in the tree, chucking acorns at him : )
The lil' bugger kept going until we left his stash alone.
The purpose of the appendix to spontaneously kill you in a horribly painful way.
Unless you have access to surgeons. Yay modern medicine!
What is dishonest is saying that people high on pot can fall out of windows... go do some research, compare the amount of people who fall out of windows just drunk to those who do it just high. Don't expect the rate of accidental death to be anywhere near as dramatic for Cannabis as for alcohol though.
If you were honest, I wouldn't have to tell you this, you trolling tool.
Birds using twigs for complicated purposes?
That's unheard of!
I can't be the only geek here annoyed by the casual use of intergalactic. We haven't even made one interplanetary trip yet, so interstellar is still far, far away, and intergalactic isn't even in the realm of conceivable projects!
Fucking 'tard replied to a post where I list the annual death toll of a legal drug, tries to strawman his way into replying to "no one ever died from drugs"? You are an intellectual midget, consider ending your pathetic existence, you're using up the oxygen worthwhile people could put to better use: Go eat a frisbee.
But with booze (in the United States alone): The annual average number of deaths for which alcohol poisoning was listed as an underlying cause was 317, with an age-adjusted death rate of 0.11 per 100,000 population. An average of 1,076 additional deaths included alcohol poisoning as a contributing cause, bringing the total number of deaths with any mention of alcohol poisoning to 1,393 per year (0.49 per 100,000 population).
The debate over whether marijuana should be recreationally legal, whether its use commonly endangers others (say, driving under the influence), and what any penalties should be is heavily clouded by this problem. It also makes the whole drug problem harder because it makes the entire drug classification system look partisan and useless, which, to some extent, it is exactly that. It results in a loss of respect for the system.
A lot of loss of respect for this obviously corrupt and dishonest system. Indeed.Regarding the latest red herring (driving), the studies done on that have hilarious results: Instead of proving that drug-taking while driving increased the risk of accidents, researchers found that the mellowing effects of cannabis made drivers more cautious and so less likely to drive dangerously.
Although the cannabis affected reaction time in regular users, its effects appear to be substantially less dangerous than fatigue or drinking. Research by the Australian Drugs Foundation found that cannabis was the only drug tested that decreased the relative risk of having an accident.
It is more dangerous to drive tired than to drive high.
What is really interresting about this is that not only do they totally ignore the fact that pot can be eaten (not exclusively smoked), and that it too can be filtered (water pipes, etc), but that there are no studies that show an increase in cacer from smoking Cannabis, in fact, some of the studies done show a decrease in cancer incidence from people smoking pot, because while nicotine is a cancer-causing violent poison, THC is a cancer-reducing psychotrope with no know toxicity level (it is impossible to have a lethal overdose of THC). But they talk about the other substances, besides from nicotine, that are also present and nasty... and assume that no one ever filters them out, or simply bypass their creation by cooking it instead of burning it.
It is illegal in spite of all available science, it was made illegal temporarily in waiting for this evidence, but once the evidence came, it was ignored. The law is a clear fraud, and a deadly one at that: Peter Alexander McWilliams (August 5, 1949 - June 14, 2000) was a writer and cannabis activist. A vocal supporter of medical cannabis due to being terminally ill with AIDS and cancer, McWilliams was investigated by the Federal Drug Enforcement Administration and convicted for violating federal marijuana laws, even though medical marijuana was legal under California state law. He later choked to death on his own vomit when he was forced to switch from cannabis to Marinol in order to remain free on bond pending sentencing .
No honest man should stand for this travesty.
a Schedule I drug according to the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, which classified marijuana as having high potential for abuse, no medical use, and not safe to use under medical supervision. Which any scientific study will tell is a load of steaming bullshit
No, I'm pretty sure there's no fraud involved. It actually IS illegal. You have not been defrauded, the laws actually are as written. Or is that not what you actually meant? So you do think that smoking one marijuhana cigarette will render the smoker hopelessly addicted, and violently insane, and that a rise in its use would lead to a wave of axe murders?
Because those are the fraudulent reasons for which it was first made illegal, provisionally, pending a revue. When revues were done, and said that it shouldn't be classified in the same category as heroin, new fraudulent reasons to keep it illegal were invented. When these were scientifically proven false, new fraudulent reasons were invented, etc.
It is now illegal to eat pot in the USA because (I kid you not) smoking tobacco causes cancer.