the Israelis want peace. They are willing to give up land for peace...Seems if the Palestinians were serious about peace they'd actually work with Israel, not against it.
That's rather like saying that the U.S. wanted peace, and was willing to give the Sioux some reservations, so why'd they have to go and kill Custer?
Israel, like the U.S., is stolen land. Like the U.S., it is a fait accompli that is not going to be reversed, but that doesn't make the Palestinians wrong for resisting invasion and occupation.
But, I sill think it's crazy that anyone would want to put a relationship thats defined by,say, anal sex on the same level as one that's defined by procreation, and also crazy that the government should support it and subsidize it at societies expense.
I think it's crazy that you think that marriage is defined by procreation, despite the obvious fact that many married couple cannot or choose not to procreate. I also think it's crazy that you think that a marriage is defined by sex of any sort, despite the obvious fact that people have sex without marriage and even marriage without sex.
That whole business with Zephrin Cochran of Montana vs the TOS Zephrin Cochran of Alpha-Centari was quite irksome to many.
What, like he couldn't have moved?
Born in Montana, make first warp flight, gets sick and tired of fame and moves to Alpha Centauri system. Lives there for a while, still can't escape autograph hounds, wanders father out into the galaxy, crashes on asteroid, has weird symbiotic romanace with glowing energy cloud.
Yes, I know about the "Sender Rewriting Scheme" . It's badly broken behavior.
"SPF requires mail forwarding MTAs to rewrite the sender address." Requring other people's software to work around flaws in your algorithm is not sensible; requiring a workaround that breaks a such a simple standard as the envelope "FROM:" addresses is downright perverse and approaching evil.
I've never heard of the possibility for a photon to travel faster than c, where c is speed of light in vacuum.
Photons travel at (or below, depending on the medium) c. However, there's nothing in special relativity to prevent there being particles that always travel faster than c; these purely theoretical particles have been dubbed tachyons, and they are something of a science fiction staple.
Yes, it does. You'll have to switch from forwarding, where the envelope sender is preserved, to remailing, where the envelope sender is changed. But don't worry, we're working on providing SRS patches for the four major opensource MTAs, so that when you upgrade to an SPF-aware version, this problem will be solved also.
If DomainKeys takes care of that, I'd choose it over SPF in a heartbeat.
I guess my problem is that I really like stuff, and I don't mind working for it, and it doesn't make me feel empty.
It doesn't make you feel empty (though how do you feel when stuff breaks or falls apart, as all stuff does eventually?), but does it make you feel full?
If stuff fills the void, at some point you'll have enough stuff, problem solved. (At least until the stuff falls apart.)
If it doesn't, you're on an endless treadmill.
"If getting this stuff didn't make me feel totally happy forever, then it must be that stuff that will do it." Lather, rinse, repeat.
You can never get enough of what you really never wanted in the first place.
you can not take any money from a business that didn't come from some consumer somewhere.
Money circulates. That's what it's supposed to do.
It's just as true that you can't money from a consumer that didn't come from some business somewhere (usually in the form of a paycheck), or that taxes on employees will be passes on to employers through a need for higher wages.
These e-bike are simply not "green" devices when compared to what they replaced.... biologically (read: human) powered bicycles.
Are they replacing bicycles more than they are replacing gas-powered scooters? If nine bicyclists switch to e-bikes, does one scooter-driver switching outweigh that? I dunno.
"Green", of course, is best achieved when humans live is as much poverty as you think you can smuggle past your audience, labeled as noble sacrifice if need be
Bullshit. Poverty is bad for the environment, since it is a strong inducement to make choices that are cheap in the short-term but expensive in the long run.
No, conspicuous consumption is not green. But being against the waste of resources, especially in pursuit of empty promises of happiness by owning more stuff, doesn't make one in favor of poverty and suffering - any more than being against overeating makes one in favor of starvation.
Interaction with any macroscopic system collapses the wavefunction. This is why if you run the two-slit experiment but put a detector by each slit to watch for which slit the photon passes through, you don't get an interference pattern.
Ah, but what if no one was looking at the detectors? Could they exist in a superposition? That's the paradox of Schrodinger's Cat.
And what exactly is a "macroscopic" system? Is it not composed of quantum particles?
Collapsing the wave function when it interacts with a "macroscopic" observer is no more of an explanation than interaction with a "conscious" observer: neither "macroscopic" nor "conscious" are properties that are defined within quantum theory.
Bringing consciousness back into it at least brings us back to an oft-forgotten principle: all physical law is simply a means of grouping and prediciting observations that we (conscious observers) make about the objective universe. Any interpretation past that point is dancing on thin ice.
The ones shooting at our guys, while not wearing uniforms to seperate themselves from the civilian population (as required by the Geneva Convention)? The ones who were either members of Al-Queda or the Taliban, right?
The ones who are accused of these things, yes.
Considering that some reports say 90% of Iraqi detainees being held wrongfully, wanna take bets on how many innocent men got to do time in dog cages in Cuba?
Truth be told, the Bush Administration was either damned if it do or damned if it don't.Either we cry that we've lost our freedoms, or we cry that the gov't isn't moving to protect us.
How would it have been dammned if it decided to not lie about Iraq? To not make false links between Saddam and Bin Laden? To not violate international law? To not make the United States a rogue agressor nation?
There's no substantial argument to be made that the Iraq invasion did anything to protect us.
And with no basis in math and science, what are these people going to use for their "Critical Thinking?"
If you want people to learn critical thinking skills, they're better off in a philosophy class than in a math or science class. In the big picture, math and science are just applications; it's philosophy that teaches you to think about thinking.
That's just the kind of arrogant snotballism that makes me want to hand you the keys to the magazine.
WTF is arrogant about knowing that it takes police over ten minutes to respond to a 911 call, while my gun can be in my hand in a matter of seconds?
When you finally snap and go on your rampage, you'll be forced to stop and reload more often, giving your intended victims more of a chance to get out of harm's way. I'd call that a benefit.
If I were planning on a rampage, pre-ban magazines are still available. Just more expensive. Or instead of one handgun with several large magazines, I'd buy two or three and empty them in succession. (Hey, I'm going out in a blaze of glory, cost is no object.)
We are talking about legal limits on the size of pistol magazines and that is all.
You asserted a benefit from the existence of such limits. If such a benefit exists, you ought to be able to cite some evidence for it. Otherwise you're just talking out of your ass.
Hint: one does not interpret the Constitution by pulling out a fucking dictionary. One does so by being as familiar as possible with the intent of the men who wrote the words.
While in this case the intent happens to agree with the plain meaning (that the people be free to keep and bear arms), the method of interpretation you suggest goes directly against the intention of the founders.
The minutes of the constitutional debates were not published for decades; if the doctrine of interpretation by "original intent" was in fact the intent of the founders, those records would have been made available eariler. In fact this doctrine was explictly denied by Madison:
But, after all, whatever veneration might be entertained for the body of men who formed our Constitution, the sense of that body could never be regarded as the oracular guide in expounding the Constitution. As the instrument came from them, it was nothing more than the draft of a plan, nothing but a dead letter, until life and validity were breathed into it by the voice of the people, speaking through the several State Conventions.
Interpretation via "original intent" leads immediately to reductio ad absurdum, since original intent was not the framer's original intent.
Isn't it funny how the just-under-half of the population that's always jabbering on about protecting the second amendement just happens to be the same people as the just-under-half of the population that supports the current regime and their sustained attack on every other right that the constitution affords us?
Except it's not.
Remember: in the late 1960s, arch-conservative Ronald Reagan signed a gun control act (the Mulford act) aimed at taking guns away from leftist Black Panthers, who were exercising their right to keep and bear arms in acts of opposition to police brutality.
Armed liberals, leftists, and socialists are not at all unusual. A Communist who beleives in "Permanent Revolution", or a libertarian socialist who is opposed to overly powerful government, is certainly going to be in favor of the right to keep and bear arms.
If total gun control could be inacted, only the police and the army would have guns; these are hardly groups beloved by the left. But the point is moot: gun control keeps guns away from bad guys about as well as drug lwas keep heroin away from junkies.
the thing is that you are not a trained and uniformed member of a law enforcement organization.
My right to self-defense is not lessened by the existence of professional police. Especially when said police are neither legally required to come to my defense, nor practically capable of protecting me as well as I can protect myself when armed.
You are, therefore, not entitled to be as thoroughly armed as those fine citizens.
Nonsense. My right to self-defense is no less than that of a police officer, my life no less valuable - and my threat to others significantly less. The fact that I am armed not only makes me safer, it makes my neighbors safer also.
The benefits of limiting civilians to ten rounds per magazine outweigh any inconvenience on your part.
What benefits? Please cite evidence that the magazine ban - or the "assault weapon" ban in general - has had any impact on crime.
The Constitution calls for a well regulated militia. Welcome to the "well regulated" part of that particular edict.
Strangely, we don't expect steam shovels to make other steam shovels. We don't expect cars to run without gasoline. And we certainly don't expect it to all just work without breaking down. But make the robotics very very small, and suddenly magic is supposed to occur.
There already exist entitites that make others of their type, operate on chemical energy from the enviroment, and are self-repairing. We call them "bacteria".
It is not unreasonable to expect that at some point in the future we will be able to create machines with these characteristics.
The most telling example was the reaction of "West Coast" (AOL/dotcom) culture with "East Coast" (Time-Warner/traditional media) culture when it came to what to do with their respective stocks/options.
AOL is headquatered in Northern Virginia. Hardly "West Coast".
Slashdot Mirror
That's rather like saying that the U.S. wanted peace, and was willing to give the Sioux some reservations, so why'd they have to go and kill Custer?
Israel, like the U.S., is stolen land. Like the U.S., it is a fait accompli that is not going to be reversed, but that doesn't make the Palestinians wrong for resisting invasion and occupation.
I think it's crazy that you think that marriage is defined by procreation, despite the obvious fact that many married couple cannot or choose not to procreate. I also think it's crazy that you think that a marriage is defined by sex of any sort, despite the obvious fact that people have sex without marriage and even marriage without sex.
Which was commited by SAUDIS BASED IN AFGHANISTAN, NOT IRAQIS.
Clone Wars kicks ass. Lucas should just get out of the way and let Genndy Tartakovsky write and direct an animated feature for Episode III.
What, like he couldn't have moved?
Born in Montana, make first warp flight, gets sick and tired of fame and moves to Alpha Centauri system. Lives there for a while, still can't escape autograph hounds, wanders father out into the galaxy, crashes on asteroid, has weird symbiotic romanace with glowing energy cloud.
It's a very common story, after all.
Yes, I know about the "Sender Rewriting Scheme" . It's badly broken behavior.
"SPF requires mail forwarding MTAs to rewrite the sender address." Requring other people's software to work around flaws in your algorithm is not sensible; requiring a workaround that breaks a such a simple standard as the envelope "FROM:" addresses is downright perverse and approaching evil.
Photons travel at (or below, depending on the medium) c. However, there's nothing in special relativity to prevent there being particles that always travel faster than c; these purely theoretical particles have been dubbed tachyons, and they are something of a science fiction staple.
Depends on which theory of dark matter you subscribe to. I don't think WIMPs could be considered "normal" matter.
No. There is no "center". Or, alternately, every point is the center.
It's not like an explosion of an object into space. It's the explosion of space itself.
SPF's handling of relays is broken:
If DomainKeys takes care of that, I'd choose it over SPF in a heartbeat.
It doesn't make you feel empty (though how do you feel when stuff breaks or falls apart, as all stuff does eventually?), but does it make you feel full?
If stuff fills the void, at some point you'll have enough stuff, problem solved. (At least until the stuff falls apart.)
If it doesn't, you're on an endless treadmill. "If getting this stuff didn't make me feel totally happy forever, then it must be that stuff that will do it." Lather, rinse, repeat.
You can never get enough of what you really never wanted in the first place.
Money circulates. That's what it's supposed to do.
It's just as true that you can't money from a consumer that didn't come from some business somewhere (usually in the form of a paycheck), or that taxes on employees will be passes on to employers through a need for higher wages.
Are they replacing bicycles more than they are replacing gas-powered scooters? If nine bicyclists switch to e-bikes, does one scooter-driver switching outweigh that? I dunno.
Bullshit. Poverty is bad for the environment, since it is a strong inducement to make choices that are cheap in the short-term but expensive in the long run.
No, conspicuous consumption is not green. But being against the waste of resources, especially in pursuit of empty promises of happiness by owning more stuff, doesn't make one in favor of poverty and suffering - any more than being against overeating makes one in favor of starvation.
Uh, no. Grams measure mass. Newtons measure force. Weight is the force due to gravity.
Your grocer probably doesn't understand the difference, and will tell you your bag of apples weighs five kilograms; but he's not correct.
Ah, but what if no one was looking at the detectors? Could they exist in a superposition? That's the paradox of Schrodinger's Cat.
And what exactly is a "macroscopic" system? Is it not composed of quantum particles?
Collapsing the wave function when it interacts with a "macroscopic" observer is no more of an explanation than interaction with a "conscious" observer: neither "macroscopic" nor "conscious" are properties that are defined within quantum theory.
Bringing consciousness back into it at least brings us back to an oft-forgotten principle: all physical law is simply a means of grouping and prediciting observations that we (conscious observers) make about the objective universe. Any interpretation past that point is dancing on thin ice.
The ones who are accused of these things, yes.
Considering that some reports say 90% of Iraqi detainees being held wrongfully, wanna take bets on how many innocent men got to do time in dog cages in Cuba?
There used to be a thing called "due process".
How would it have been dammned if it decided to not lie about Iraq? To not make false links between Saddam and Bin Laden? To not violate international law? To not make the United States a rogue agressor nation?
There's no substantial argument to be made that the Iraq invasion did anything to protect us.
If you want people to learn critical thinking skills, they're better off in a philosophy class than in a math or science class. In the big picture, math and science are just applications; it's philosophy that teaches you to think about thinking.
Lead-acid batteries are almost completely recyclable. Anyone "discarding" them needs adjustment via clue-stick.
WTF is arrogant about knowing that it takes police over ten minutes to respond to a 911 call, while my gun can be in my hand in a matter of seconds?
If I were planning on a rampage, pre-ban magazines are still available. Just more expensive. Or instead of one handgun with several large magazines, I'd buy two or three and empty them in succession. (Hey, I'm going out in a blaze of glory, cost is no object.)
You asserted a benefit from the existence of such limits. If such a benefit exists, you ought to be able to cite some evidence for it. Otherwise you're just talking out of your ass.
While in this case the intent happens to agree with the plain meaning (that the people be free to keep and bear arms), the method of interpretation you suggest goes directly against the intention of the founders.
The minutes of the constitutional debates were not published for decades; if the doctrine of interpretation by "original intent" was in fact the intent of the founders, those records would have been made available eariler. In fact this doctrine was explictly denied by Madison:
Interpretation via "original intent" leads immediately to reductio ad absurdum, since original intent was not the framer's original intent.
Except it's not.
Remember: in the late 1960s, arch-conservative Ronald Reagan signed a gun control act (the Mulford act) aimed at taking guns away from leftist Black Panthers, who were exercising their right to keep and bear arms in acts of opposition to police brutality.
Armed liberals, leftists, and socialists are not at all unusual. A Communist who beleives in "Permanent Revolution", or a libertarian socialist who is opposed to overly powerful government, is certainly going to be in favor of the right to keep and bear arms.
If total gun control could be inacted, only the police and the army would have guns; these are hardly groups beloved by the left. But the point is moot: gun control keeps guns away from bad guys about as well as drug lwas keep heroin away from junkies.
My right to self-defense is not lessened by the existence of professional police. Especially when said police are neither legally required to come to my defense, nor practically capable of protecting me as well as I can protect myself when armed.
Nonsense. My right to self-defense is no less than that of a police officer, my life no less valuable - and my threat to others significantly less. The fact that I am armed not only makes me safer, it makes my neighbors safer also.
What benefits? Please cite evidence that the magazine ban - or the "assault weapon" ban in general - has had any impact on crime.
I suggest you research the meaning of that phrase.
There already exist entitites that make others of their type, operate on chemical energy from the enviroment, and are self-repairing. We call them "bacteria".
It is not unreasonable to expect that at some point in the future we will be able to create machines with these characteristics.
AOL is headquatered in Northern Virginia. Hardly "West Coast".