Only conclusion? ONE? Someone's undervaluing education here, and I suggest looking in the mirror for a clue. Here's another hint: what you said could be applied to just about any nation in the world. How small-minded.
Bullets have one and one purpose only - to kill. If you didn't plan on killing anyone, why would you have bullets around? Hint: you're more likely to kill one of your family with those bullets than anyone else. Not that killing anyone else would be great, either.
Are you sure about that? Everyone in America knows that, we've had it since birth. So much so that the opposite system seems weird and unnatural.
How about the opposite system? Communism is powerful, powerful stuff. So powerful it managed to spread laziness, poverty, and hideously poor engineering in a country populated entirely by Germans.
Gosh, here's one today. China forbids Philippines from fishing in international waters, citation here and about a million other places on the net. I really have to question your education here...do we not follow the news? It's been splashed all over the net. Your "understanding" is dated, if it ever were true in the first place. Please, go out and get some book learnin' in you, boy. Either that, or stop interrupting when adults are talking.
Project your feelings much? Read the comment again: for once, it is entirely about YOU, and yet you STILL manage to hijack the discussion onto your personal politics. Game, set, and match.
You know, back during the Bu$hitler days, I never thought I'd see a pro-government liberal...but here we are. We have always been at war with Oceania...I used to think that was a joke, but Orwell was dead serious.
I see one thing hasn't changed, though: the conviction that every possible topic involves your pet politics, and the acceptability of hijacking any thread no matter how technical.
Just tested them all from my residential DSL line, and none of them (except for Tor) are blocked by the Great Firewall of China. Make of that what you will.
Do we forget so quickly? How many people were *certain* that Bu$hitler was going to suspend the Constitution and invoke martial law to stay in power? There were serious, sober people saying this with no irony. Now, suddenly, it's a ridiculous idea because those on the other side of the political spectrum are saying the same thing? How does this work, exactly? Please explain.
So...how about my USB devices? Will Microsoft stop labeling them as 'dirty', despite the fact that FAT32 devices don't need to be 'detached' in the same way as NTFS filesystems? A FAT USB drive (or Android phone) doesn't need to be 'safely removed'. You can just yank the thing and it's fine (as long as it's finished its r/w operations). These days, Windows prompts me to chkdsk my damn USB drive/Android phone every time I plug it in. I looked in to disabling it, and it
We're not talking about that, are we? We're talking about why California, the best state according to itself and a shit-ton of Europeans, is dead last in science. Why could this be? What are the other states doing right that California is getting wrong?
No, no...entirely the opposite. The vanguard of the people's revolution must be in the thick of such things, otherwise the people might become complacent. When a provocateur attacks the police from the safety of the crowd, the police must retaliate - on otherwise innocent people. This creates many more new recruits for the people's revolution. The police would be fools to put its own provocateurs in such a position. Mao Zedong wrote about doing exactly this sort of thing to build the strength of the revolution, as did Bill Ayers, Saul Alinsky, and other leading lights of 20th century radical leftism. Don't tell me you got through four years of university without a solid grounding in all the great Marxist thinkers!
"Gamifying" the system? Won't that just lead to...people gaming the system? Or is this the sort of obvious conclusion that people miss, the kind of people who have no problem using "gamify" as a verb.
How much of a vote should a dog get? 3/5 a person? Which candidate would a dog vote for? How would this affect the 2012 U.S. elections, if rights for dogs were immediately implemented as you suggest? What would you imagine that Bo, Obama's neutered male Portuguese Water Dog, would have to say to the other dogs of America? What would this new voting constituency have to say about Obama's dog-eating habits? These are serious questions that you raise with your thoughts about dogs getting rights, and they deserve serious answers.
Uh, yeah, we do know that footbridges are excellent places for muggers to intercept their victims, where there is no hope of escape? Seriously, where do you GET this stuff? Even if there was a footbridge, I'd still drive, because walking on one is just ASKING to become a crime victim. Dumbfuck.
What's your problem with "neocons"? You do know that neocons are Jewish, right? So...what's with the anti-Semitism? And seriously, your anti-socialist sentiments are repugnant as well. Don't you know socialism is the way to kick the 1% to the curb and empower the 99%?
Yeah, you go ahead and contradict a Supreme Court Justice on what he says. Hint: he's smarter than you. Why do you think he arrived at these conclusions? Do you somehow know better than him? If so, explain.
I think someone needs to read up on what "limited access highway" means. No, you can not walk across them. I stagger to contemplate the mind that thinks this could, nay, should be possible.
Anyone may arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be as low as
possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which best pays the
treasury. There is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes.
Over and over again the Courts have said that there is nothing sinister
in so arranging affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everyone
does it, rich and poor alike and all do right, for nobody owes any
public duty to pay more than the law demands."
Judge Learned Hand
(1872-1961), Judge, U. S. Court of Appeals
Source: in the case of Gregory v. Helvering 69 F.2d 809, 810 (2d Cir. 1934), aff'd, 293 U.S. 465, 55 S.Ct. 266, 79 L.Ed. 596 (1935)
PS stop rephrasing people's comments for them. They mean what they mean, not what you want them to say.
"It is at first denied that any radical new plan exists; it is then conceded that it exists but ministers swear blind that it is not even on the political agenda; it is then noted that it might well be on the agenda but is not a serious proposition; it is later conceded that it is a serious proposition but that it will never be implemented; after that it is acknowledged that it will be implemented but in such a diluted form that it will make no difference to the lives of ordinary people; at some point it is finally recognised that it has made such a difference, but it was always known that it would and voters were told so from the outset."
-- Times editorial, published on August 28, 2002
International students who pay a lot of money are the ones who couldn't pass the entrance exams in their own countries. I know this is certainly the case here in China, where gaokao failures inevitably go abroad.
So, why didn't these "credible" scientists conspire together to discredit him years ago? After all, he's a nut according to your logic. There is nothing more damaging than a fool advocating your theories. Could it be an inconvenient truth that nobody wanted to discredit him because he was doing the right thing by getting people excited?
Slashdot Mirror
Only conclusion? ONE? Someone's undervaluing education here, and I suggest looking in the mirror for a clue. Here's another hint: what you said could be applied to just about any nation in the world. How small-minded.
Bullets have one and one purpose only - to kill. If you didn't plan on killing anyone, why would you have bullets around? Hint: you're more likely to kill one of your family with those bullets than anyone else. Not that killing anyone else would be great, either.
How about the opposite system? Communism is powerful, powerful stuff. So powerful it managed to spread laziness, poverty, and hideously poor engineering in a country populated entirely by Germans.
Gosh, here's one today. China forbids Philippines from fishing in international waters, citation here and about a million other places on the net. I really have to question your education here...do we not follow the news? It's been splashed all over the net. Your "understanding" is dated, if it ever were true in the first place. Please, go out and get some book learnin' in you, boy. Either that, or stop interrupting when adults are talking.
Project your feelings much? Read the comment again: for once, it is entirely about YOU, and yet you STILL manage to hijack the discussion onto your personal politics. Game, set, and match.
I see one thing hasn't changed, though: the conviction that every possible topic involves your pet politics, and the acceptability of hijacking any thread no matter how technical.
Just tested them all from my residential DSL line, and none of them (except for Tor) are blocked by the Great Firewall of China. Make of that what you will.
Do we forget so quickly? How many people were *certain* that Bu$hitler was going to suspend the Constitution and invoke martial law to stay in power? There were serious, sober people saying this with no irony. Now, suddenly, it's a ridiculous idea because those on the other side of the political spectrum are saying the same thing? How does this work, exactly? Please explain.
Oh, man, I am SO putting that subject line on a T-shirt. Now all I need is an appropriate illustration that can go in 1-color silkscreen!
So...how about my USB devices? Will Microsoft stop labeling them as 'dirty', despite the fact that FAT32 devices don't need to be 'detached' in the same way as NTFS filesystems? A FAT USB drive (or Android phone) doesn't need to be 'safely removed'. You can just yank the thing and it's fine (as long as it's finished its r/w operations). These days, Windows prompts me to chkdsk my damn USB drive/Android phone every time I plug it in. I looked in to disabling it, and it
We're not talking about that, are we? We're talking about why California, the best state according to itself and a shit-ton of Europeans, is dead last in science. Why could this be? What are the other states doing right that California is getting wrong?
No, no...entirely the opposite. The vanguard of the people's revolution must be in the thick of such things, otherwise the people might become complacent. When a provocateur attacks the police from the safety of the crowd, the police must retaliate - on otherwise innocent people. This creates many more new recruits for the people's revolution. The police would be fools to put its own provocateurs in such a position. Mao Zedong wrote about doing exactly this sort of thing to build the strength of the revolution, as did Bill Ayers, Saul Alinsky, and other leading lights of 20th century radical leftism. Don't tell me you got through four years of university without a solid grounding in all the great Marxist thinkers!
"Gamifying" the system? Won't that just lead to...people gaming the system? Or is this the sort of obvious conclusion that people miss, the kind of people who have no problem using "gamify" as a verb.
Alarmists.
How much of a vote should a dog get? 3/5 a person? Which candidate would a dog vote for? How would this affect the 2012 U.S. elections, if rights for dogs were immediately implemented as you suggest? What would you imagine that Bo, Obama's neutered male Portuguese Water Dog, would have to say to the other dogs of America? What would this new voting constituency have to say about Obama's dog-eating habits? These are serious questions that you raise with your thoughts about dogs getting rights, and they deserve serious answers.
Uh, yeah, we do know that footbridges are excellent places for muggers to intercept their victims, where there is no hope of escape? Seriously, where do you GET this stuff? Even if there was a footbridge, I'd still drive, because walking on one is just ASKING to become a crime victim. Dumbfuck.
What's your problem with "neocons"? You do know that neocons are Jewish, right? So...what's with the anti-Semitism? And seriously, your anti-socialist sentiments are repugnant as well. Don't you know socialism is the way to kick the 1% to the curb and empower the 99%?
Yeah, you go ahead and contradict a Supreme Court Justice on what he says. Hint: he's smarter than you. Why do you think he arrived at these conclusions? Do you somehow know better than him? If so, explain.
I think someone needs to read up on what "limited access highway" means. No, you can not walk across them. I stagger to contemplate the mind that thinks this could, nay, should be possible.
Judge Learned Hand (1872-1961), Judge, U. S. Court of Appeals
Source: in the case of Gregory v. Helvering 69 F.2d 809, 810 (2d Cir. 1934), aff'd, 293 U.S. 465, 55 S.Ct. 266, 79 L.Ed. 596 (1935)
PS stop rephrasing people's comments for them. They mean what they mean, not what you want them to say.
You receive this week's award for "set our culture on fire and laugh".
"It is at first denied that any radical new plan exists; it is then conceded that it exists but ministers swear blind that it is not even on the political agenda; it is then noted that it might well be on the agenda but is not a serious proposition; it is later conceded that it is a serious proposition but that it will never be implemented; after that it is acknowledged that it will be implemented but in such a diluted form that it will make no difference to the lives of ordinary people; at some point it is finally recognised that it has made such a difference, but it was always known that it would and voters were told so from the outset."
-- Times editorial, published on August 28, 2002
Doing that would eradicate the culture of entrepreneurship that Stanford so excellently exemplifies. PS: nobody benefits from a worthless education.
International students who pay a lot of money are the ones who couldn't pass the entrance exams in their own countries. I know this is certainly the case here in China, where gaokao failures inevitably go abroad.
So, why didn't these "credible" scientists conspire together to discredit him years ago? After all, he's a nut according to your logic. There is nothing more damaging than a fool advocating your theories. Could it be an inconvenient truth that nobody wanted to discredit him because he was doing the right thing by getting people excited?