Your the second person to assert that a mugger deserves points because he's taken personal risk. You can admire someone for being an intrepid risk taker -- but that doesn't mitigate any crimes that peson commits.
No nonono no no.
Not points, I just love it when I read about a mugger getting his ass kicked by someone coming back from martial arts classes.
That never happens to people who commit fraudulent charity-impersonations. Therefore I hate them more, because they get punished less.
I have to admit that I neglected the concept of the effect of the criminal's action. And it's certainly more wrong to victimize somebody who's defenseless.
this guy who's on the ground and watching the UN's presense first hand: The only way to get away from the UN there is to go where there's actually people in need. Hang out in 5 star hotels and you'll be swamped by 'em.
So that guy is hanging out in his 5 star hotel, whining that there's more people than usual? "Yo, kettle! You black foo!"
During 9/11, people were shocked that street vendors sold water for $20 a bottle and nearby jewelry stores were robbed. I always thought "Well, if the disaster was of a much bigger magnitude, people would probably not do this." Now, 150,000 dead, and we still have assholes trying to make a buck off it. What does it take for these people to learn morals? Is the extra cash worth that much when there's now several thousand orphans? Do we need, what, a nuclear holocaust to get assholes to knock it off?
I don't follow the logic of that at all.
Why would heartless vultures stop being opportunistic thieves because something bad happened to other people? They lead lives where they constantly look for their next victim, they routinely inflict misery on others, and you, somehow, expect them to suddenly stop being leeches because an unrellated event killed a lot of people at once?
I seriously don't understand how anyone could be surprised that thieves keep on thieving, even when you're upset. If someone has no empathy for the people he/she routinely con in person, there is no reason to expect them to have empathy for the faceless dead, no matter how numerous.
When the lists of missing persons was release, some people cross-referenced it to the list in the phone-book. Then they went out and fsking robbed the houses of the mising persons!
Here's a thought: Release the list, but first warn the relatives and fill the missing person's houses with carbon monoxide.
Extreme? Yes, but I think those crooks deserve it.
Well, siphoning off some charitable contributions is evil, but not as evil as, say, hitting somebody over the head and taking their wallet.
Diverting money intended to provide relief for people who are starving and without shelter, in dire need of medical aid and driking water.
Inflicting physical harm on an individual and taking away some of his money as well as most of his IDs and his sense of security.
We're clearly comparing apples and oranges here, but #1 isn't less evil, it's just more cowardly (it is done remotly and does not entail the possibility of inadvertantly attacking a blackbelt). People might die for lack of charity in these cases. But the crook doesn't see them die, his hands are clean, it's not his fault if people are gullible enough to give him/her the money instead of giving it to the red cross.
Now is the time - now that you have been warned. It'll be a miracle if this doesn't rubbish the book in some respect so just do yourself a favour and read A Scanner Darkly before it gets Keanu'd and you can never think of it without, uh, like, you know, dude.
GAH!!! NO! no, no NO!
No! When a story you are interrested in is coming up soon on the big screen and you have not yet read the book, do NOT read it now. The book is always better than the movie. So the only logical thing to do is to watch the movie first, enjoy it, and THEN read the book and enjoy it MORE.
That way you get
Movie, good.
Book: Better!
. If you do it the other way, you get
Book: Good.
Movie: Bad!
Why would you willingly subject yourself to not liking the movie? The book will still be there, as good as ever, after you've had a chance to enjoy the movie. If you rush out and read the book before, you ruin your chances of liking the movie.
My way makes you happy twice, your way makes you happy once, sad/mad once. Think about it, isn't the world bad enough as it is? Don't make it harder for yourself.
4: Interresting? That's it! The moderation system is broken.
I gotta tell you, this more "realistic" style of cartooning is much more interesting than the anime style of Miyazaki. For one, the 3 dimensional depth aspect is added through the use of very well thought out shading, so the characters seem more alive than most other cartoons. Miyazaki's work pales in comparison to the screenshots shown here.
It's ROTOSCOPY! Those "drawings" are traced over filmed images. And from the looks of it, it's vector based, making it very easy to automate the in-betweening.
Why would you even bring up Miyazaki? Why not bring up Disney's Snow White? That also used a lot of rotoscopy for Snow White herself, but blended in with traditional animation.
Your point was that there could be a technological devellopment that would prevent amputations? Not in our lifetimes I'm affraid.
That no technological advancements are worthy of attention bar those that are full-on miracles? Go live in a cave.
Since YOU missed my point:
Mice dont go away, so we build better mouse traps. Or: Stop raining on the enhanced prosthesis parade; it's a step up. We shouldn't hold out for the giant leap.
This is good news, but you know, it doesn't put a smile on my face. If there were a story here entitled "Thousands of kids didn't lose their leg in the first place" that would make me smile.
Boy do I have news for you!
Cheer up: Billions of kids didn't loose ANY limbs at all! In the united states alone, hundreds of millions of kids didn't loose their legs during the 20th century! Hazzah!
Shocking - they don't seem to support DOS based Windows (9x and ME) even though there are arguably millions of infected consumper PC's. WinME boxes aren't THAT old.
Yeah, but what have you done ($$$) for me lately? -B. Gates III
Although I'm sure you can find plenty of definitions of "WMD"(Weapons of Mass Destruction) that include "capable of mass destruction", I can also find plenty that don't.
That means that there are plenty of people writing these definitions that are dimwits and/or dishonest.
For example, the California Penal Code defines a few relevant terms
Since you like quoted definitions:
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
An appeal to authority is a type of argument in logic also known as argument from authority, argumentum ad verecundiam (Latin: argument from modesty) or ipse dixit (Latin: he himself, said it). It is one method of obtaining propositional knowledge and is often a logical fallacy.
I do not care if the authoritative government of California has an ill conceived definition of "weapon of mass destruction" that does not entail that it is a weapon capable of mass destruction. Lawyer logic has the power to send armed men to get you and lock you up in a box; That does not make it the truth.
What I'd like is a way to metamoderate our own recieved mods and metamods.
So that trolls can post starting at 1 forever? Sorry, try again:)
No, more like a message that says "This moderation has been judged fair/unfair by the author." when you metamod. So that you could give your opinion on any mod (up or down) you recieve.
Taking this into account, you could better metamoderate the trolls who always disagree with down and always agree with up: "this person has agreed with moderation that were metamoderated fair or unfair x% of the time.", "This person has disagreed with upmods y% of the time, and with downmods z% of the time".
You know, a system of stats: "This person has been modded at a ratio of x ups for y downs", "This person has been modded up in this thread x times, and down y times", etc.
I don't want the moderated to have the power to decide to maintain or remove the mods they recieve, but to provide additional information that can be used by the metamoderators. Because as it is now, it's the blind leading the dumb.
I believe it is philisophically impossible to believe in god. You can only believe in the person(s) that described god to you. Science can prove that the guy that told you about your god was repeating something made up.
Please don't paint us as a group by your impressions of mainstream gay culture... a huge number of us (probably the majority, I'd wager) choose to either not participate, or participate infrequently in the large "gay community", and you probably interact with us daily but simply aren't aware of the fact that we're gay, because we don't make an issue of it.
Nah, I have a pretty good gaydar (when I'm told someone I sorta know has had a "coming out", I usually go "finally"... like I couldn't tell that the theatre loving, snappy dresser amongst the other engineers wasn't a tad different from the rest of the group, even if most of 'em had no girl). I can tell most gay men apart pretty easilly, it's not as reliable with lesbians.
I was exagerating when I said you were the only sane gay man I ever encountered, I've known a few cool fags and lesbos, and a few jerks and idiots and fools of any orientation. But I'm politically incorrect.
It's just that, there's this tendency for conformity in all of us, and the "gay community" conforms to something that I find horrible: A culture that worships superficiality and hedonism (not restricted to gay peole of course, just... generally exhalted in large groups of gay people), while I worship intelligence and technology.
But, seeing to guys kiss makes me want to hurl. No offense.
Slashdot Mirror
You're laughing at me?
A lot!
I'm a conservative and Bush is an insane president with a socialist agenda.
Er, no?!
Hint: When someone wants to privatise everything, he's not a socialist.
Socialism is to the left, Bush is waaaaayyyyy over there on the right.
The political mindset of someone who is pro-military, pro-industry, pro-capitalism and hypernationalistic is fascism.
Stupid? You know what's stupid? You, particularly when my cock is bouncing on your forehead.
Wow, it must take a GENIUS to come up with some reparte like that! lol!
you're such an obtuse cock licker
you're too stupid
you can eat more cum than anyone else
you keep guzzling that spunk
Hahaha, oh how your words sting!
Ah... it's good to laugh on a monday morning.
I'm saying that there could be a political development that would prevent people from losing their legs: abandon an immoral war in Iraq.
Oh, I couldn't possibly expect that you meant THAT.
That's just stupid.
Car accidents? Cancer? You know...
Ah well, go back to making cryptic political jabs.
no way to completely forget the actors' faces and voices, and your imagination is no longer completely your own.
My imagination stays my own no matter what.
To each his own I guess.
Your the second person to assert that a mugger deserves points because he's taken personal risk. You can admire someone for being an intrepid risk taker -- but that doesn't mitigate any crimes that peson commits.
No nonono no no.
Not points, I just love it when I read about a mugger getting his ass kicked by someone coming back from martial arts classes.
That never happens to people who commit fraudulent charity-impersonations. Therefore I hate them more, because they get punished less.
I have to admit that I neglected the concept of the effect of the criminal's action. And it's certainly more wrong to victimize somebody who's defenseless.
Well, at least you got that part : )
this guy who's on the ground and watching the UN's presense first hand: The only way to get away from the UN there is to go where there's actually people in need. Hang out in 5 star hotels and you'll be swamped by 'em.
So that guy is hanging out in his 5 star hotel, whining that there's more people than usual?
"Yo, kettle! You black foo!"
Latest news on the UN efforts there.
During 9/11, people were shocked that street vendors sold water for $20 a bottle and nearby jewelry stores were robbed. I always thought "Well, if the disaster was of a much bigger magnitude, people would probably not do this."
Now, 150,000 dead, and we still have assholes trying to make a buck off it. What does it take for these people to learn morals? Is the extra cash worth that much when there's now several thousand orphans? Do we need, what, a nuclear holocaust to get assholes to knock it off?
I don't follow the logic of that at all.
Why would heartless vultures stop being opportunistic thieves because something bad happened to other people? They lead lives where they constantly look for their next victim, they routinely inflict misery on others, and you, somehow, expect them to suddenly stop being leeches because an unrellated event killed a lot of people at once?
I seriously don't understand how anyone could be surprised that thieves keep on thieving, even when you're upset. If someone has no empathy for the people he/she routinely con in person, there is no reason to expect them to have empathy for the faceless dead, no matter how numerous.
When the lists of missing persons was release, some people cross-referenced it to the list in the phone-book. Then they went out and fsking robbed the houses of the mising persons!
Here's a thought: Release the list, but first warn the relatives and fill the missing person's houses with carbon monoxide.
Extreme? Yes, but I think those crooks deserve it.
We're clearly comparing apples and oranges here, but #1 isn't less evil, it's just more cowardly (it is done remotly and does not entail the possibility of inadvertantly attacking a blackbelt). People might die for lack of charity in these cases. But the crook doesn't see them die, his hands are clean, it's not his fault if people are gullible enough to give him/her the money instead of giving it to the red cross.
GAH!!! NO! no, no NO!
No! When a story you are interrested in is coming up soon on the big screen and you have not yet read the book, do NOT read it now. The book is always better than the movie. So the only logical thing to do is to watch the movie first, enjoy it, and THEN read the book and enjoy it MORE.
That way you get
- Movie, good.
- Book: Better!
. If you do it the other way, you getWhy would you willingly subject yourself to not liking the movie? The book will still be there, as good as ever, after you've had a chance to enjoy the movie. If you rush out and read the book before, you ruin your chances of liking the movie.
My way makes you happy twice, your way makes you happy once, sad/mad once. Think about it, isn't the world bad enough as it is? Don't make it harder for yourself.
I want to see a great movie, not a great special effect.
It's based on a book, so I figure they've got a story that holds together to start with.
But sometimes, I go just to see special effects. Sometimes.
4: Interresting? That's it! The moderation system is broken.
I gotta tell you, this more "realistic" style of cartooning is much more interesting than the anime style of Miyazaki. For one, the 3 dimensional depth aspect is added through the use of very well thought out shading, so the characters seem more alive than most other cartoons.
Miyazaki's work pales in comparison to the screenshots shown here.
It's ROTOSCOPY! Those "drawings" are traced over filmed images. And from the looks of it, it's vector based, making it very easy to automate the in-betweening.
Why would you even bring up Miyazaki? Why not bring up Disney's Snow White? That also used a lot of rotoscopy for Snow White herself, but blended in with traditional animation.
Taaaaaaake oooooon meeeeeee
Take! On! Me!
Taaaaaake meeeeeee ooooooon!
Great! I'm gonna have song in my head all day now!
Oh yeah?
Your point was that there could be a technological devellopment that would prevent amputations?
Not in our lifetimes I'm affraid.
That no technological advancements are worthy of attention bar those that are full-on miracles?
Go live in a cave.
Since YOU missed my point:
Mice dont go away, so we build better mouse traps.
Or:
Stop raining on the enhanced prosthesis parade; it's a step up. We shouldn't hold out for the giant leap.
P.S. trying not to sound too harsh, failing.
This is good news, but you know, it doesn't put a smile on my face. If there were a story here entitled "Thousands of kids didn't lose their leg in the first place" that would make me smile.
Boy do I have news for you!
Cheer up: Billions of kids didn't loose ANY limbs at all!
In the united states alone, hundreds of millions of kids didn't loose their legs during the 20th century! Hazzah!
But for those that did, this is reason to smile.
What formulas do I write down
Title of the thread: "What Do You Believe Even If You Can't Prove It?"
I see that you demand proof. Wonderfull. How's being a troll working out for you? Enjoying life under that bridge/your mom's?
Shocking - they don't seem to support DOS based Windows (9x and ME) even though there are arguably millions of infected consumper PC's. WinME boxes aren't THAT old.
Yeah, but what have you done ($$$) for me lately?
-B. Gates III
the release is only a beta version, not a final release. That might explain the bugs.
It's called Microsoft AntiSpyware. The first half of the name explains the bugs pretty well for me.
Now, what I wanna know: Is clippy involved? "You are trying to clean your machine. Would you like to give us money?"
I see that in your rush to troll, you didn't bother to read that part:
So your weighing different deaths against each other?
No, I'm comparing two crimes.
That means that there are plenty of people writing these definitions that are dimwits and/or dishonest.
For example, the California Penal Code defines a few relevant terms
Since you like quoted definitions:
I do not care if the authoritative government of California has an ill conceived definition of "weapon of mass destruction" that does not entail that it is a weapon capable of mass destruction. Lawyer logic has the power to send armed men to get you and lock you up in a box; That does not make it the truth.
No, more like a message that says "This moderation has been judged fair/unfair by the author." when you metamod.
So that you could give your opinion on any mod (up or down) you recieve.
Taking this into account, you could better metamoderate the trolls who always disagree with down and always agree with up: "this person has agreed with moderation that were metamoderated fair or unfair x% of the time.", "This person has disagreed with upmods y% of the time, and with downmods z% of the time".
You know, a system of stats:
"This person has been modded at a ratio of x ups for y downs", "This person has been modded up in this thread x times, and down y times", etc.
I don't want the moderated to have the power to decide to maintain or remove the mods they recieve, but to provide additional information that can be used by the metamoderators. Because as it is now, it's the blind leading the dumb.
Science can not disprove God.
I believe it is philisophically impossible to believe in god. You can only believe in the person(s) that described god to you.
Science can prove that the guy that told you about your god was repeating something made up.
Please don't paint us as a group by your impressions of mainstream gay culture... a huge number of us (probably the majority, I'd wager) choose to either not participate, or participate infrequently in the large "gay community", and you probably interact with us daily but simply aren't aware of the fact that we're gay, because we don't make an issue of it.
Nah, I have a pretty good gaydar (when I'm told someone I sorta know has had a "coming out", I usually go "finally"... like I couldn't tell that the theatre loving, snappy dresser amongst the other engineers wasn't a tad different from the rest of the group, even if most of 'em had no girl). I can tell most gay men apart pretty easilly, it's not as reliable with lesbians.
I was exagerating when I said you were the only sane gay man I ever encountered, I've known a few cool fags and lesbos, and a few jerks and idiots and fools of any orientation. But I'm politically incorrect.
It's just that, there's this tendency for conformity in all of us, and the "gay community" conforms to something that I find horrible: A culture that worships superficiality and hedonism (not restricted to gay peole of course, just... generally exhalted in large groups of gay people), while I worship intelligence and technology.
But, seeing to guys kiss makes me want to hurl. No offense.