What's the difference between a GM crop and a non-GM crop by the way?
The GM crop contains genetic sequences not in the genome of the altered species. That's the whole fucking point. The "it's no different than selective breeding!" argument is ludicrous.
GM crops are about profit, not about science and certainly not about feeding people (they have lower yields). Ordinary cross-breeding (which can be supplemented by genetic analysis) gives better and safer results, both for the consumer and the environment.
"The crime of apartheid is defined by the 2002 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court as inhumane acts of a character similar to other crimes against humanity 'committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime."
Israel's relationship with Palestine is an exactly an institutionalized and intentional regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over another.
According to the UN's Special Rapporteur for Palestine, the "general structure of apartheid that exists in the Occupied Palestinian Territories... makes the allegation increasingly credible despite the differences between the specific characteristics of South African apartheid and that of the Occupied Palestinian Territories regime."
Is it not the same middle eastern people that every other country surrounding them is?
Your question seems to be garbled -- perhaps a typographical error?
There is nothing else about rights, but only this: it's about establishing the boundary of what the government can do to you and how you are protected from it.
Not at all. A right is that which is due someone by moral or legal principle.
You cannot have a right to something.
So you don't accept the right to a trial by jury?
You can't have a right to health care or a house or your own airplane.
Of course you can. You have the right to health care, because a society in which everyone cannot obtain basic requirements is fatally flawed and unsustainable. You do not have the right to your own airplane, because a society in which everyone cannot obtain their own airplane is not fatally flawed.
The rights are not a natural construct either.
The natural rights are simply the operating requirements of a human person. They include food, clothing, shelter, medical care, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
There is no such thing as having a right not to be beaten to death.
Yes, there is. If I beat you to death, I have clearly violated your rights.
So you have to get your nomenclature and understanding of simplest concepts in order,
Here is what I have a problem with: using government to promote 'rights' of things that we ourselves make...
Such as children?
Without themselves participating in the economy, and themselves being our creations, these things must not be used to increase the number of gov't laws that exist, as not to increase the financial burden on those, who actually do participate in the economy.
Again...like children?
Rights have nothing to do with one's participation in the economy.
Or perhaps you're saying that any given word has one and only one meaning regardless of context?
No, I'm not saying anything at all like that. I'm speaking of the words you used in the context in which you used them.
you're here to convince me that you're correct
I'm here to suggest an improvement to your written communication, so that what you write more closely aligns with what you mean. If you're not interested in that, then, yes, there's no point in continuing. But perhaps you'll remember it the next time someone complains about you making offensive, overly general statement about some group.
1600x1200 != 16:9 Aspect Ratio
1920x1080 = 16:9 Aspect Ratio
And the aspect ratio of the monitor needs to be the same as the aspect ration of a window displayed on it because...? Display it with letterboxing or pillarboxing and relax.
"Molecular clock and fossil dating suggest platypuses split from echidnas around 19-48 million years ago. The oldest discovered fossil of the modern platypus dates back to about 100,000 years ago, during the Quaternary period. The extinct monotremes Teinolophos and Steropodon were closely related to the modern platypus. The fossilised Steropodon....is thought to be about 110 million years old, which means that the platypus-like animal was alive during the Cretaceous period, making it the oldest mammal fossil found in Australia. Monotrematum sudamericanum, another fossil relative of the platypus, has been found in Argentina, indicating that monotremes were present in the supercontinent of Gondwana when the continents of South America and Australia were joined via Antarctica (up to about 167 million years ago)."
The sudden appearance of a unique species with no apparent ancestors. If we were to find -- either in the fossil record or in some deep jungle -- a six-legged three-eyed mammal-like species, for example, that would something hard to explain via evolution.
The real kind of socialism, the kind where it was illegal to make profit.
The "real kind of socialism" is one where the economy is controlled by the workers. Not by a Party oligarchy (Stalinism, Maoism, Fascism), nor by a state-backed oligarchy of "owners" (capitalism).
Multiple alarms are very useful to most people. If you want your alarm set for work Monday through Friday, you set an alarm for that. If you want another one for waking you up later on Saturday, set one for that.
Until your alarm goes off early on Memorial Day.
On the other hand, adults who have been dealing with alarm clocks for 30 years or more ask the same question every night: "What time do I need to get up tomorrow morning?"
That's how a basic alarm clock works. It does not make me consider what time I need to get up twelve Tuesdays from now. That's an overly complicated question to ask someone who just wants to use the device as a fscking alarm clock.
If you want something with multiple alarms, fine, just don't use the alarm clock metaphor for it. It's fundamentally broken design to use a metaphier fundamentally different from the metaphrand.
I think anyone who can't figure out that + means "add" (same as it always has since first grade when you learned basic addition)...
So the + on a Google Maps page means add a map? And that "Alice + Bob" in a heart graffiti means add Alice to Bob? And the red + on a first aid kit means add the kit to something?
+ can mean plus, and, increase, zoom in,more information (such as expanding a collapsed tree view), use an international dialing prefix...it is a highly overloaded symbol.
Older generations don't get it not because of its complexity, but its simplicity.
There is nothing "simple" about the example cited. A simple alarm clock app has exactly one control function, to set its single alarm. Multiple alarms? Neither necessary nor simple nor, for the vast majority of users, useful.
It's just a poorly designed app, like the vast majority of technology out there. But for those who have become used to the brokenness -- or to one specific way of brokenness, like Apple's -- anything else seems "complicated".
"The atheists" can mean two or two hundred. It's rather purposefully ambiguous.
No, it does not. "The X" is a general reference to all to whom the label X can be applied. "The Christians are assholes" is a statement about all Christians (and an incorrect and offensive one).
A teapotist would believe is such a teapot. An ateapotist would not believe there is such a teapot, and would find the assertion that there is to be rather ridiculous, but would acknowledge that a negative cannot be proven. An agnosti-teapotist would believe that maybe there is a teapot there and maybe there isn't, but that the possibility must be seriously considered.
Maybe there is a god, maybe there's not. I don't care.
It's an economic in-joke along the lines of the great spaghetti monster. Some folk simply choose either to believe, or appear to believe.
So it's the same as any other currency, then. Wampum, dollars, giant stone wheels, pieces of eight, bitcoins, -- if enough people believe they have value, they have value.
Exactly. Except for specific on-line gatherings that need to be in realtime, IM in is various forms was, and is, for children. Adults, who are busy leading real lives, use asynchronous communication. AOL a social requisite? Maybe among the teens and/or tweens. We grups were using e-mail lists and USENET, technologies that didn't stay limited to one walled garden and were useful for more than rying out, "look at me, right now, right now!"
I remember the Oqo quite well, and as a geek I wanted one (or a Sharp Zarus...). However as an engineer and end user, I knew it was never practical and would be primarily an expensive toy.
Can't speak for the Oqo, but I have a Zaurus C3000, one of the clamshell models.
The whole idea of the UMPC is that it's not a tablet, it's got a keyboard. Tablets are expensive toys with questionable practical value, but I used my Zaurus to get a lot of writing done, and could tether it to my phone and ssh into servers.
It's showing its age -- they came out in 2004, IIRC. No built-in networking and the support for wifi CF cards was a little dogey. So over the past few months I've mostly switched over to an Eee, but its not nearly as convenient -- I'm thinking of picking up a Netwalker, which seems to be the closest think to an updated Zaurus.
The idea of a "fact agency" sounds very tempting as a quick fix, and I'm certain that if such a thing were created, it would do wonders at the beginning. But once there's a fair amount of public trust in it, that's when the potential for abuse becomes great.
Which is why you need several of them. Some good general fact-check resources include FactCheck,org, Politifact.com, snopes.com, Wikipedia, and the message boards at TheStraightDope.com. It wouldn't necessarily be a bad idea for, say, Voice of America to add another such site.
Nothing will ever eclipse thorough research and hard questioning.
Sure, but you need a couple of resources that you trust in order to bootstrap your research,
and Amazon is not obligated to explain why it has chosen to take offense.
And we are not obligated to do business with censoring fucktards who should be first against the wall when the revolution comes. This is not a first offense. Anyone still doing business with Amazon is either clueless or does not care about freedom.
I find it interesting that so many people seem to think science and faith are mutually excluseive.... All very technically minded people, and all very much connected to their faith.
And what does "technically minded" have to do with "scientific"? There are a lot of physicians out there who are creationists. (Ron Paul is one, just one point in his batshit insanity.) Engineers are no more necessarily scientific in their worldview than are plumbers.
Probably few of you are old enough to remember the dust-up when Forrest M. Mims, a popular author of books for electronics hobbyists, was turned down as editor of Scientific American's "Amateur Scientist" column in part because he's an evolution denier. Mims is a perfect example of a "technically minded" person who wouldn't know science if it bit him on the ass.
Verbal assault is recognised as a criminal act in most countries that protect free speech.
Racist or sexist slurs are not verbal assault, you spearchucker/washichu/chink/spic/sandmonkey/paddy/dago/hebe/kraut/frog/fag/whore/gigolo/buttmuncher/cocksucker/cuntlicker (check all that apply). Verbal assault is a threat, speech that causes someone to apprehend imminent bodily harm.
If I were to walk towards you and say "syousef, I'm going to fuck you up," and you reasonably believed that I had the motive and means to do so, that would be verbal assault, and justifies the use of force. If I were to walk towards you and say "syousef, you stupid spearchucker/washichu/chink/spic/sandmonkey/paddy/dago/hebe/kraut/frog/fag/whore/gigolo/buttmuncher/cocksucker/cuntlicker, you have no clue what verbal assault means", that's not verbal assault, that's an insult.
An insult justifies you insulting me back, or not inviting me to the cotillion, or asking me to leave the premises, but it does not justify the use of force.
He was allowed to say what he said. He simply faced the consequences of saying it after the fact.
Gibberish. "I didn't rob him, your honor. He simply faced the consequences of keeping his wallet after the fact, when I hit him over the head and took it."
When the state creates artificial consequences for speech via the use of force, that's the opposite of free speech.
It is perfectly valid and a very clear example that you should not be permitted to yell "Fire" in the middle of a movie theatre and cause a stampede that has the potential to kill and mame.
You can in fact shout "fire" in a theater. I saw Penn Gillette do it years ago -- he was juggling flaming torches and deliberately dropped one, yelled "Fire!" and made a crack about always wanting to yell that in a crowed theater.
Which is cute, but irrelevant, because the "yelling fire in a crowed theater" cliche demonstrates the idea of limiting the time, place, and manner of speech. It's making a speech under circumstances that can cause a stampede, not the content of the speech itself, that can be restricted; and only because and to the degree that the time, place, and manner of speech might interfere with the rights of others.
And there is not a right to not be insulted, or to not have other people say rude things about you. If those rude things rise to the level of knowingly false statements by someone whose allegations might be believable to the masses, then there may be libel or slander -- which are civil actions, not criminal ones.
Slashdot Mirror
The GM crop contains genetic sequences not in the genome of the altered species. That's the whole fucking point. The "it's no different than selective breeding!" argument is ludicrous.
GM crops are about profit, not about science and certainly not about feeding people (they have lower yields). Ordinary cross-breeding (which can be supplemented by genetic analysis) gives better and safer results, both for the consumer and the environment.
"The crime of apartheid is defined by the 2002 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court as inhumane acts of a character similar to other crimes against humanity 'committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime."
Israel's relationship with Palestine is an exactly an institutionalized and intentional regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over another.
According to the UN's Special Rapporteur for Palestine, the "general structure of apartheid that exists in the Occupied Palestinian Territories ... makes the allegation increasingly credible despite the differences between the specific characteristics of South African apartheid and that of the Occupied Palestinian Territories regime."
Your question seems to be garbled -- perhaps a typographical error?
Not at all. A right is that which is due someone by moral or legal principle.
So you don't accept the right to a trial by jury?
Of course you can. You have the right to health care, because a society in which everyone cannot obtain basic requirements is fatally flawed and unsustainable. You do not have the right to your own airplane, because a society in which everyone cannot obtain their own airplane is not fatally flawed.
The natural rights are simply the operating requirements of a human person. They include food, clothing, shelter, medical care, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Yes, there is. If I beat you to death, I have clearly violated your rights.
Yes. Please come back when you have.
Such as children?
Again...like children?
Rights have nothing to do with one's participation in the economy.
No, I'm not saying anything at all like that. I'm speaking of the words you used in the context in which you used them.
I'm here to suggest an improvement to your written communication, so that what you write more closely aligns with what you mean. If you're not interested in that, then, yes, there's no point in continuing. But perhaps you'll remember it the next time someone complains about you making offensive, overly general statement about some group.
And the aspect ratio of the monitor needs to be the same as the aspect ration of a window displayed on it because...? Display it with letterboxing or pillarboxing and relax.
Thusly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platypus#Evolution
"Molecular clock and fossil dating suggest platypuses split from echidnas around 19-48 million years ago. The oldest discovered fossil of the modern platypus dates back to about 100,000 years ago, during the Quaternary period. The extinct monotremes Teinolophos and Steropodon were closely related to the modern platypus. The fossilised Steropodon....is thought to be about 110 million years old, which means that the platypus-like animal was alive during the Cretaceous period, making it the oldest mammal fossil found in Australia. Monotrematum sudamericanum, another fossil relative of the platypus, has been found in Argentina, indicating that monotremes were present in the supercontinent of Gondwana when the continents of South America and Australia were joined via Antarctica (up to about 167 million years ago)."
And they were digging around in the shale because they were looking for something like tiktaalik: "As Shubin's team studied the species they saw to their excitement that it was exactly the missing intermediate they were looking for."
The sudden appearance of a unique species with no apparent ancestors. If we were to find -- either in the fossil record or in some deep jungle -- a six-legged three-eyed mammal-like species, for example, that would something hard to explain via evolution.
The "real kind of socialism" is one where the economy is controlled by the workers. Not by a Party oligarchy (Stalinism, Maoism, Fascism), nor by a state-backed oligarchy of "owners" (capitalism).
Until your alarm goes off early on Memorial Day.
On the other hand, adults who have been dealing with alarm clocks for 30 years or more ask the same question every night: "What time do I need to get up tomorrow morning?"
That's how a basic alarm clock works. It does not make me consider what time I need to get up twelve Tuesdays from now. That's an overly complicated question to ask someone who just wants to use the device as a fscking alarm clock.
If you want something with multiple alarms, fine, just don't use the alarm clock metaphor for it. It's fundamentally broken design to use a metaphier fundamentally different from the metaphrand.
So the + on a Google Maps page means add a map? And that "Alice + Bob" in a heart graffiti means add Alice to Bob? And the red + on a first aid kit means add the kit to something?
+ can mean plus, and, increase, zoom in,more information (such as expanding a collapsed tree view), use an international dialing prefix...it is a highly overloaded symbol.
That makes no sense.
"The girls in the math class failed the test."
"No they didn't! Many got As."
"Oh, I was just referring to the subset who failed."
That is the meaning of the words you used. If that was not your meaning, then I suggest that you a different set of words next time.
Congratulations -- in a thread full of ageist bullshit, this tops the pile.
There is nothing "simple" about the example cited. A simple alarm clock app has exactly one control function, to set its single alarm. Multiple alarms? Neither necessary nor simple nor, for the vast majority of users, useful.
It's just a poorly designed app, like the vast majority of technology out there. But for those who have become used to the brokenness -- or to one specific way of brokenness, like Apple's -- anything else seems "complicated".
IOW, "The facts don't fit my preferences for the way the world should work, and therefore the facts must be ignored."
No, it does not. "The X" is a general reference to all to whom the label X can be applied. "The Christians are assholes" is a statement about all Christians (and an incorrect and offensive one).
Yes, in fact it is.
Theism = belief in god(ess)(s/es). Atheism = not theism = non-belief in god(ess)(s/es).
I do not believe that there is teapot in a solar orbit between the Earth and Mars. That is not quite the same as believing that there is not a teapot in such an orbit.
A teapotist would believe is such a teapot. An ateapotist would not believe there is such a teapot, and would find the assertion that there is to be rather ridiculous, but would acknowledge that a negative cannot be proven. An agnosti-teapotist would believe that maybe there is a teapot there and maybe there isn't, but that the possibility must be seriously considered.
Then you might be labeled an apatheist, or an apathetic agnostic.
So it's the same as any other currency, then. Wampum, dollars, giant stone wheels, pieces of eight, bitcoins, -- if enough people believe they have value, they have value.
Exactly. Except for specific on-line gatherings that need to be in realtime, IM in is various forms was, and is, for children. Adults, who are busy leading real lives, use asynchronous communication. AOL a social requisite? Maybe among the teens and/or tweens. We grups were using e-mail lists and USENET, technologies that didn't stay limited to one walled garden and were useful for more than rying out, "look at me, right now, right now!"
Now get off my lawn, you whippersnapper.
Can't speak for the Oqo, but I have a Zaurus C3000, one of the clamshell models.
The whole idea of the UMPC is that it's not a tablet, it's got a keyboard. Tablets are expensive toys with questionable practical value, but I used my Zaurus to get a lot of writing done, and could tether it to my phone and ssh into servers.
It's showing its age -- they came out in 2004, IIRC. No built-in networking and the support for wifi CF cards was a little dogey. So over the past few months I've mostly switched over to an Eee, but its not nearly as convenient -- I'm thinking of picking up a Netwalker, which seems to be the closest think to an updated Zaurus.
Which is why you need several of them. Some good general fact-check resources include FactCheck,org, Politifact.com, snopes.com, Wikipedia, and the message boards at TheStraightDope.com. It wouldn't necessarily be a bad idea for, say, Voice of America to add another such site.
Sure, but you need a couple of resources that you trust in order to bootstrap your research,
And we are not obligated to do business with censoring fucktards who should be first against the wall when the revolution comes. This is not a first offense. Anyone still doing business with Amazon is either clueless or does not care about freedom.
And what does "technically minded" have to do with "scientific"? There are a lot of physicians out there who are creationists. (Ron Paul is one, just one point in his batshit insanity.) Engineers are no more necessarily scientific in their worldview than are plumbers.
Probably few of you are old enough to remember the dust-up when Forrest M. Mims, a popular author of books for electronics hobbyists, was turned down as editor of Scientific American's "Amateur Scientist" column in part because he's an evolution denier. Mims is a perfect example of a "technically minded" person who wouldn't know science if it bit him on the ass.
Racist or sexist slurs are not verbal assault, you spearchucker/washichu/chink/spic/sandmonkey/paddy/dago/hebe/kraut/frog/fag/whore/gigolo/buttmuncher/cocksucker/cuntlicker (check all that apply). Verbal assault is a threat, speech that causes someone to apprehend imminent bodily harm.
If I were to walk towards you and say "syousef, I'm going to fuck you up," and you reasonably believed that I had the motive and means to do so, that would be verbal assault, and justifies the use of force. If I were to walk towards you and say "syousef, you stupid spearchucker/washichu/chink/spic/sandmonkey/paddy/dago/hebe/kraut/frog/fag/whore/gigolo/buttmuncher/cocksucker/cuntlicker, you have no clue what verbal assault means", that's not verbal assault, that's an insult.
An insult justifies you insulting me back, or not inviting me to the cotillion, or asking me to leave the premises, but it does not justify the use of force.
Gibberish. "I didn't rob him, your honor. He simply faced the consequences of keeping his wallet after the fact, when I hit him over the head and took it."
When the state creates artificial consequences for speech via the use of force, that's the opposite of free speech.
You can in fact shout "fire" in a theater. I saw Penn Gillette do it years ago -- he was juggling flaming torches and deliberately dropped one, yelled "Fire!" and made a crack about always wanting to yell that in a crowed theater.
Which is cute, but irrelevant, because the "yelling fire in a crowed theater" cliche demonstrates the idea of limiting the time, place, and manner of speech. It's making a speech under circumstances that can cause a stampede, not the content of the speech itself, that can be restricted; and only because and to the degree that the time, place, and manner of speech might interfere with the rights of others.
And there is not a right to not be insulted, or to not have other people say rude things about you. If those rude things rise to the level of knowingly false statements by someone whose allegations might be believable to the masses, then there may be libel or slander -- which are civil actions, not criminal ones.