911 shouldn't have changed a damn thing. Yet it seems as if the Bush team has milked it to build the bedrock for a police state. Given their political donations come from the same private interests that profit from such draconian right wing lunacy, it looks like the Bush team staged it themselves, quite honestly. Maybe they did, I guess we'll never really know, since by definition the people capable of that are capable of killing to cover it up.
But even if they didn't explicitly plan it, Ossama was trained, funded and armed by the CIA, back when the Taliban were labelled "freedom fighters" (is that like "freedom fries"?), what goes around comes around.
the city of Chicago, Illinois, USA doesn't allow handguns. Even if you interpret the US Constitution as not allowing each individual person to own guns (as groups like the American Civil Liberties Union do) the Illinois State Constitution http://www.ilga.gov/commission/lrb/con1.htm/ explicitly provides for that, leaving little if any room for such interpretation. Handguns. What about hunting rifles?
This will change when the government starts running low on money and has to start funding the surveillance with enterprises like: "Nose pickers caught on tape" I think "short skirts, windy day" will sell better.
I should feel safer, yet it COMPLETELY FAILS to prevent my becoming a victim? Do YOU have a brain tumor?
In fairness, many people commit more than one crime, usually many more. The cameras may reduce the number of these criminals on the streets by making it easier to catch and detain them after their first crime. Because they will never get out of prison, or because people never commit additional crimes once they are released?
and some still believe that chilly weather conditions are the cause of the common cold*. But I want it out of the scientific litterature.
*hygiene, people! HYGIENE!
Yes, that's why colds are uncorelated with the seasons. (Actually, they are, but it's because people don't like to wash their hands in warm water during cold weather). No wait, I'm confused, that doesn't make sense.
God dammit people, correlation != causation. Wellcome to the 18th century!
In cold weather all windows are shut and people breathe in the airborn microbes coughed into this closed system, touching the surfaces that were coughed on, or touched by those oozing microbes. I walk around in snowstorms in a t-shirt, and I have less colds than the ones who dress extra-warm but fail to take hygienic countermeasures. It has nothing to do with the temperature to which you are exposed, and everything to do with hygiene.
The cameras are used to investigate after a crime is commited. You should be feeling safer. If you are victim to a crime in a public place, chancer are higher that the perpetrator will be caught. I should feel safer, yet it COMPLETELY FAILS to prevent my becoming a victim? Do YOU have a brain tumor?
> It's about keeping dangerous animals caged. Removing dangerous individuals from the general population. In this case why does the US have the world's largest prison population (about 2 million) and relatively high crime rates still? Because they take non-dangerous individuals (such as potheads), jail them with dangerous murderers, rapists and crooked accountants, and them RELEASE them back into the general population after years of abuse.
Instead of removing existing threats within the population, they create new ones.
Gallileo had just had his ass handed to him by the church. He pretty much HAD to add that part, no matter how weak it may seem out of context.
You got this mixed up. It was René Descartes that came up with "Cogito, ergo sum". Galileo Galilei got into trouble witht the Vatican because he supported Nicolaus Copernicus's theories of the solar system. This went directly against the religious beliefs that the world, earth, was flat and the center of the universe.
Falcon I have nothing mixed up.
Gallileo had just had his ass handed to him by the church. He (Descarte, the subject at hand) had to add a church-friendly twist so his ass would be safe.
The British government, though, is seeking to change the law inorder to lock up people with personality disorders that are thoughtto make them likely to commit crimes, before any crime is committed.
I think I speak for EVERYONE on the planet, except the idiots that lead us,when I say: What The Fuck???
If we have no free will, then you also can't blame people fortheir actions. It's not about blame, or punishment. It's about keeping dangerous animals caged. Removing dangerous individuals from the general population.
If we found the sure fire precursor signs to serial killers, we could keep them away from the population before they started raking up victims. But that's a big "if". It is far more likely that "dangerous individuals" would turn out to be anyone disagreeing with the police-state.
He proved he exists, but then got stuck there. In his actual argument, he followed that up with, "If I exist, then god must exist, and if god exists then the world must exist, because god wouldn't fuck with me like that" which is pretty weak. Gallileo had just had his ass handed to him by the church. He pretty much HAD to add that part, no matter how weak it may seem out of context.
No, I never questioned your facts. I questioned your opinions.
I never said that not wanting to have your movements recorded when you are in public spaces is indicative of criminal behaviour. What I said is that people who worry about CCTV cameras are worrying too much. Let me give you an example. I work in the security industry.
Ah.
You like CCTV cameras because you're one of the watchers, they are part of your means to bread and butter. The watchees, hoewever, feel differently.
Unless you watch Everyone Loves HypnoToad or you have green slime sucker attached to your head, you have a choice. What color was the tumor? Because it was definatly feeding off his brain.
This article is just suggesting that we go back to eugenics. Of course contrary to 'common knowledge', eugenics does work. All we have to do is look at the family dog to see that eugenics works, and why humans should not be allowed to perform it. I must have uncommon knowledge... I never thought it didn't work, I just thought no one competent ever attempted it, and that you had to look to Aushwitz to see why.
Though, if I had the power... I'd have my own selective breeding program, crossing double-jointed people with dwarves. I'd need my own island... preferably in the indian ocean...
Where do our desires come from? If they come from the our bodies and ultimately the universe, then that's determinism. If they come from nothingness, then you have free will. It is not a false dichotomy. There is either causality or there is not. Lisa! In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
Apparently, some people still believe in spontaneous generation... their belief just found a niche in the realm of the immaterial. That's fine for uneducated proles, some people still think we have a different digetive system for liquids and solids, and some still believe that chilly weather conditions are the cause of the common cold*. But I want it out of the scientific litterature.
Not all child abusers have tumors. More importantly, not all people with tumors become child abusers. *sigh*
The point of the tumor is that it appears "spontaneously" and it can be removed. The exact spot on his brain where it acted could have been influenced by an injury, which wouldn't come unnoticed and wouldn't be cured so readily.
It's not a question of strength of will, it's a question of the nature of one's will. The tumor (apparently) gave him the will to have sex with kids, removing the tumor removed that will. It isn't about your will being separated from your urges, it's about your urges and your will being one and the same.
Its especially interesting because hes supposed to be a smart guy. You'd think the last thing you want to do is purchase a book He's a smart guy allright.
When you want to do something you don't how to do, you find a book that tells you how to do it.
One of the best comments ever was in a long thread about the technicalities of RAID hardware. Someone wrote four long paragraphs, and halfway through the second, tacked on to the end of one sentence "and besides, Hermione dies in the last book anyways." *
The outrage was tremendous because, before you even realized you were reading a spoiler, you'd finished and comprehended it. Sweetest troll ever. You admire trolls and repeat the content of their posts?!?
My biggest issue with Harry Potter series is that it depicts the protagonist as one who has no genius, is not hard-working by any standards, has bigotry - in short - an absolutely average person. He's a natural on a broom, which in turn makes him a sports star. He is also famous and rich, on top of the natural affinity for being a respected athleet. And frankly, he takes a LOT of abuse without becoming abusive himself. That's hard.
My biggest issue with such a story - that too tailored for young children - is that the protagonist is not anywhere close to the perfect role model for children I thought your biggest issue was his lack of genius?
- and they are impressionable at that age. I am not asking for the protagonist to be a genius But... it's your biggest issue with the series!
- I am just saying there should be some real stand-out feature in the protagonist - in a children's book. I couldn't find it in this book. Couldn't find the scar? The gold? The quidditch cup?
When I read the book, it felt as if the political correctness of the current times have enveloped the fantasy world too.
YMMV.
I'm sorry, did lil' red riding hood and her grandma get saved by a hunter who's extremely good at vivisection (and a wolf who swallows their victims whole) or did the lil' twit die so that kids would learn to beware of strangers? PC got to the fanyasy world a loooong time ago.
Voyager with a crew of mixed starfleet officers and rebels against the Federation where everyone is pissed at the captain for stranding them and no one gets along? Sure, it sucked, but no one got along.
I don't think that the one in your.sig will get done, since they killed off two of my favourite characters in the movie. Well, one of them was too likable to survive long in a Whedon show (he's got to kill off the ones we love, it's in his nature, the bastard;-) And Book's backstory was explained by his deep understanding of the Operative. But Fox can't take the sky from me, I still hope:)
But, hey, let's be happy that Futurama's back from it's early grave!
Slashdot Mirror
But even if they didn't explicitly plan it, Ossama was trained, funded and armed by the CIA, back when the Taliban were labelled "freedom fighters" (is that like "freedom fries"?), what goes around comes around.
"Nose pickers caught on tape" I think "short skirts, windy day" will sell better.
I am going to be thinking carefully about that sentence all day. Thank you. You're wellcome.
In fairness, many people commit more than one crime, usually many more. The cameras may reduce the number of these criminals on the streets by making it easier to catch and detain them after their first crime. Because they will never get out of prison, or because people never commit additional crimes once they are released?
But I want it out of the scientific litterature.
*hygiene, people! HYGIENE!
Yes, that's why colds are uncorelated with the seasons. (Actually, they are, but it's because people don't like to wash their hands in warm water during cold weather). No wait, I'm confused, that doesn't make sense.
God dammit people, correlation != causation. Wellcome to the 18th century!
In cold weather all windows are shut and people breathe in the airborn microbes coughed into this closed system, touching the surfaces that were coughed on, or touched by those oozing microbes.
I walk around in snowstorms in a t-shirt, and I have less colds than the ones who dress extra-warm but fail to take hygienic countermeasures. It has nothing to do with the temperature to which you are exposed, and everything to do with hygiene.
In this case why does the US have the world's largest prison population (about 2 million) and relatively high crime rates still? Because they take non-dangerous individuals (such as potheads), jail them with dangerous murderers, rapists and crooked accountants, and them RELEASE them back into the general population after years of abuse.
Instead of removing existing threats within the population, they create new ones.
Gallileo had just had his ass handed to him by the church. He pretty much HAD to add that part, no matter how weak it may seem out of context.
You got this mixed up. It was René Descartes that came up with "Cogito, ergo sum". Galileo Galilei got into trouble witht the Vatican because he supported Nicolaus Copernicus's theories of the solar system. This went directly against the religious beliefs that the world, earth, was flat and the center of the universe.
Falcon I have nothing mixed up.Gallileo had just had his ass handed to him by the church. He (Descarte, the subject at hand) had to add a church-friendly twist so his ass would be safe.
I think I speak for EVERYONE on the planet, except the idiots that lead us,when I say: What The Fuck???
If we have no free will, then you also can't blame people fortheir actions. It's not about blame, or punishment.
It's about keeping dangerous animals caged. Removing dangerous individuals from the general population.
If we found the sure fire precursor signs to serial killers, we could keep them away from the population before they started raking up victims.
But that's a big "if". It is far more likely that "dangerous individuals" would turn out to be anyone disagreeing with the police-state.
No, I never questioned your facts. I questioned your opinions.
I never said that not wanting to have your movements recorded when you are in public spaces is indicative of criminal behaviour. What I said is that people who worry about CCTV cameras are worrying too much. Let me give you an example. I work in the security industry.
Ah.You like CCTV cameras because you're one of the watchers, they are part of your means to bread and butter.
The watchees, hoewever, feel differently.
I never thought it didn't work, I just thought no one competent ever attempted it, and that you had to look to Aushwitz to see why.
Though, if I had the power... I'd have my own selective breeding program, crossing double-jointed people with dwarves. I'd need my own island... preferably in the indian ocean...
Apparently, some people still believe in spontaneous generation... their belief just found a niche in the realm of the immaterial. That's fine for uneducated proles, some people still think we have a different digetive system for liquids and solids, and some still believe that chilly weather conditions are the cause of the common cold*.
But I want it out of the scientific litterature.
*hygiene, people! HYGIENE!
The point of the tumor is that it appears "spontaneously" and it can be removed. The exact spot on his brain where it acted could have been influenced by an injury, which wouldn't come unnoticed and wouldn't be cured so readily.
It's not a question of strength of will, it's a question of the nature of one's will. The tumor (apparently) gave him the will to have sex with kids, removing the tumor removed that will. It isn't about your will being separated from your urges, it's about your urges and your will being one and the same.
Its especially interesting because hes supposed to be a smart guy. You'd think the last thing you want to do is purchase a book He's a smart guy allright.
When you want to do something you don't how to do, you find a book that tells you how to do it.
The outrage was tremendous because, before you even realized you were reading a spoiler, you'd finished and comprehended it. Sweetest troll ever. You admire trolls and repeat the content of their posts?!?
He is also famous and rich, on top of the natural affinity for being a respected athleet. And frankly, he takes a LOT of abuse without becoming abusive himself. That's hard. My biggest issue with such a story - that too tailored for young children - is that the protagonist is not anywhere close to the perfect role model for children I thought your biggest issue was his lack of genius? - and they are impressionable at that age. I am not asking for the protagonist to be a genius But... it's your biggest issue with the series! - I am just saying there should be some real stand-out feature in the protagonist - in a children's book. I couldn't find it in this book. Couldn't find the scar? The gold? The quidditch cup? When I read the book, it felt as if the political correctness of the current times have enveloped the fantasy world too.
YMMV.
I'm sorry, did lil' red riding hood and her grandma get saved by a hunter who's extremely good at vivisection (and a wolf who swallows their victims whole) or did the lil' twit die so that kids would learn to beware of strangers? PC got to the fanyasy world a loooong time ago.
...what on earth where they thinking in the first place? "I wonder what people keep in their clipboard..."Voyager with a crew of mixed starfleet officers and rebels against the Federation where everyone is pissed at the captain for stranding them and no one gets along? Sure, it sucked, but no one got along.
And Book's backstory was explained by his deep understanding of the Operative. But Fox can't take the sky from me, I still hope
But, hey, let's be happy that Futurama's back from it's early grave!
Ripped from today's headline: the Nth sequel of a 40 year old franchise set in the future!