One hunter was in the woods making a turkey call. Another hunter came along, thought he was hearing a real bird, and shot the hunter. Because, after all, when you're packing a hunting rifle there's no reason to actually look to see if it's actually a turkey you're shooting.
Do you know anything about turkey hunting or hunting in general? Moreover, did you even RTFA that you linked? First of all, it was a shotgun--not a rifle. There's a very big difference there. Second of all, it was predawn--that means before dawn. Before dawn, it's generally dark. When it's dark, it's harder to see because there're less photons bouncing off of things and coming back to your eyes. The things that photons may bounce off of include turkeys and people. Kalin (the man who fired the gun) couldn't've seen White (the man who was shot) at that time, not to mention he was hidden behind the treeline--so even if it were day time, there would've been issues. It was an accident, I have no idea why you're bringing it up; if you're trying to make some sort of 'point' about hunters being lazy, unintelligent burly men just pointing-and-clicking in the woods, perhaps you should talk to some hunters first (and not just the ones who rally against peta and hate all vegans).
And another thing, what's all this horseshit about people who align themselves with you being 'sensible'? Is your view the only applicable one? What makes a person 'decent'? You say it as though you're applying it universally. Get your head out of your ass, please. I sure as hell don't agree with 95% of the choices modern agriculture makes, and something like allowing anyone to shoot a captive animal from the comfort of their own computer sickens me. But that's why I hunt. Because I don't agree with how American's get most of their food, and I don't agree with instant gratification 24/7. Seriously man, think before you lump.
Oh that's right. I forgot that you can download the dead animals over the Internet these days. Sorry.
You must've also forgotten the first part of your original statement--the part where called out hunters as a group. Then you said "Especially" internet hunters. You're a dumbass.
The last time I checked, AIDS did not turn into a frog, plankton, or an amoeba.
The last time I checked, you didn't have a time machine to find out what--if anything--AIDS may turn into. Apparently you also have no sense of scope: the time necessary for a species to change into a completely different species would be very, very long (by human standards), extended by mate selection (you're probably not gonna go out and engage in coital activities with elephant man. Now think of a duck with proteus syndrome or something similiar! If they can't indentify it as one of their own physically, they're probably not going to mate with it, either.)
Great showing, sickofthisshit. Furthermore I'd like to point out that our poster is missing the fact that life does in fact exist at such high and extreme temperatures, such as hot springs and deep sea vents--but of course, that information was probably in the reports his pastor didn't read outloud to the class^H^H^H^Hongregation.
Regarding relevant religious texts you're warned repeatedly; it's the diet(y's/ies') job to decide how much of a sin it is to not believe in them. That said, I personally agree with you.
Science still has issues dealing with the very extreme innards of the cell and the intricate mechanisms operating within, let alone DNA.
Why is it that people in opposition to current theories always cite things like this? "Science still can't explain x", where x is something that current scientific theories have no answer for (semantics, people) or something whose explanation, however unforthcoming, is infact explainable via current scientific theories that are misunderstood by the person using this as a point. I'm unsure which case the parent post falls into, because nothing was cited and there were no specifics. But that, coupled with how it was phrased, makes me assume that the poster's posterior is doing most of the typing. With those concessions aside, it's time now for my actual shot: DNA is very very new on the Grand Scientific Timeline--it took millenia to understand the equations the govern the simplest physics on a macro scale, and you're citing that not having uncovered all the minuteia of the most miniscule interactions in a cell in a scant 50 years as cause enough to reconsider a scientific (read: provable) theory? Make your blowjob payable to Jay Straw, dumbass.
To touch upon the "equal discussion" bit, however briefly, equal discussion isn't even really possible as another poster pointed out; ID,at its core, is not provable scientifically. It's a belief.
I'm not sure you want to go there, because if the universe can exist without cause that means it exists outside the natural order of things, because the natural order is for cause and effect.
Not if the 'natural order of things' is a byproduct/manifestation of the universe
Just wanted to say excellent post, and I do not envy your allegiance with a group whose 'poorly trained teachers' and poorly trained students seem to be the most vocal out of you. Keep it up.
Oh, I'm sorry--I thought you were saying 2-3 generations was too long. Point taken.
However, if your system works, there're still several reasons to upgrade your OS, not the least of which is security. Also, if all the machines around you getting upgraded, sometimes it's a difficult proposition to stay behind (due to incompatibility in OSes/protocols).
Legacy support is only good for a limited span of time.
So when you have to tell your boss/spouse that, even though they know the hardware well and it works fine, you need an extra $2,000 to upgrade it, how do you do it?
General Post--wasn't he the guy who defeated the Quakers in the Battle for Bran Hill in the late 1890's? Too bad Kellogg used his amazing powers of abstinence to rein in what would've otherwise been an amazing empire.
Yarr sayeth me--if ye think that ye gets a console with named buttons, then ye be overly optimistic. Neigh--what is nigh for ye is an atari with dirty paddle controllers...and a copy of pac man
How, exactly, is that Bush's America? He's a driveling douche bag who has no place behind a large store of nuclear weapons, but c'mon--justify that for me, or, for that matter, anyone reading your post with a critical eye.
I think the difference lies in implementation--if I change my WM in linux, the old one goes away...in windows, if I want to alter my GUI, I need to run a GUI on top. That takes up needless resources, slows things down, and means that there's a much higher probability that the system will get errors and crash. Just far too messy for my tastes.
I clicked, and it told me that if I earned enough money through them, I could look like this--and no one would care because of how totally rich I'd be from m@rketing!
I suppose, being the dhammabum, you might call that the Johnathon Livingston Flock of Seagull haircut?
You can DTFM (do the fucking math), but you can't RTFA (read the fucking article)? The 500k was restitution, not fines--a previous post explained the difference. He was sentenced to 18 months as well.
Seriously douche, the AC has it right--even all of these IANAL's got it and you didn't. Perhaps R-ingTFA or even half the posts above you would've explained it so even you could understand it.
That's the first post in a while I haven't replied specifically to bitch. In fact, I'm not replying to say anything except well put, and we need a helluva lot more people like you on/.
He DIDN'T mention Ramanujan at all. It's like saying "The tsunami hit a number of Asian countries, lots of Asians died". Meanwhile, in more important news, the Michel Jackson trial...
a) He DID mention Ramanujan--he just didn't do so by name. What I was trying to say before it was obfuscated by some lame ass subterfuge about the media (carried further by some horrid attempt to allude to your own wordliness by condemning the masses because of what they think matters) is that if the author were truly commiting 'racial slight', he would've failed to give any mention of Ramanujan at all--this, mind you, includes mentioning "Indian math guy"
FOAD redneck
You make a statement of that magnitude, and yet/still/ don't submit your view of utopia. I mean, you're absolutely right--I'm a redneck. That is, I'd be a redneck if my long hair didn't cover my neck and I weren't going to art museums and disagreeing with Bush so often. Dumb ass.
The reason could well have been carelessness, but it can easily be interpreted as a cultural and racial slight
If the arthor were truly commiting 'racial slight', why would he've mentioned Ramanujan in the first place?
FOAD redneck.
lol I've never heard FOAD--what's it mean? For the record I never have (and doubt I ever will) vote for the Grand ol' Party--liberals can kiss my ass, too. Libertarians and indepents all the way.
Slashdot Mirror
One hunter was in the woods making a turkey call. Another hunter came along, thought he was hearing a real bird, and shot the hunter. Because, after all, when you're packing a hunting rifle there's no reason to actually look to see if it's actually a turkey you're shooting.
Do you know anything about turkey hunting or hunting in general? Moreover, did you even RTFA that you linked? First of all, it was a shotgun--not a rifle. There's a very big difference there. Second of all, it was predawn--that means before dawn. Before dawn, it's generally dark. When it's dark, it's harder to see because there're less photons bouncing off of things and coming back to your eyes. The things that photons may bounce off of include turkeys and people. Kalin (the man who fired the gun) couldn't've seen White (the man who was shot) at that time, not to mention he was hidden behind the treeline--so even if it were day time, there would've been issues. It was an accident, I have no idea why you're bringing it up; if you're trying to make some sort of 'point' about hunters being lazy, unintelligent burly men just pointing-and-clicking in the woods, perhaps you should talk to some hunters first (and not just the ones who rally against peta and hate all vegans).
And another thing, what's all this horseshit about people who align themselves with you being 'sensible'? Is your view the only applicable one? What makes a person 'decent'? You say it as though you're applying it universally. Get your head out of your ass, please. I sure as hell don't agree with 95% of the choices modern agriculture makes, and something like allowing anyone to shoot a captive animal from the comfort of their own computer sickens me. But that's why I hunt. Because I don't agree with how American's get most of their food, and I don't agree with instant gratification 24/7. Seriously man, think before you lump.
I don't think a deer ever has a hope of killing me, hundred feet away and high powered rifle or not.
You've never tried to sustenance farm where overpopulation has forced them to graze in your fields.
I think my post came out a tad 'dickish', which it wasn't meant to. Just pointing out something I hadn't read thus far in the thread.
Oh that's right. I forgot that you can download the dead animals over the Internet these days. Sorry.
You must've also forgotten the first part of your original statement--the part where called out hunters as a group. Then you said "Especially" internet hunters. You're a dumbass.
The last time I checked, AIDS did not turn into a frog, plankton, or an amoeba.
The last time I checked, you didn't have a time machine to find out what--if anything--AIDS may turn into. Apparently you also have no sense of scope: the time necessary for a species to change into a completely different species would be very, very long (by human standards), extended by mate selection (you're probably not gonna go out and engage in coital activities with elephant man. Now think of a duck with proteus syndrome or something similiar! If they can't indentify it as one of their own physically, they're probably not going to mate with it, either.)
If you are a shareholder, you can participate in governance.
Exactly--how many shareholders exhibit the same vision as Brin and Page?
Great showing, sickofthisshit. Furthermore I'd like to point out that our poster is missing the fact that life does in fact exist at such high and extreme temperatures, such as hot springs and deep sea vents--but of course, that information was probably in the reports his pastor didn't read outloud to the class^H^H^H^Hongregation.
Regarding relevant religious texts you're warned repeatedly; it's the diet(y's/ies') job to decide how much of a sin it is to not believe in them. That said, I personally agree with you.
Science still has issues dealing with the very extreme innards of the cell and the intricate mechanisms operating within, let alone DNA.
Why is it that people in opposition to current theories always cite things like this? "Science still can't explain x", where x is something that current scientific theories have no answer for (semantics, people) or something whose explanation, however unforthcoming, is infact explainable via current scientific theories that are misunderstood by the person using this as a point. I'm unsure which case the parent post falls into, because nothing was cited and there were no specifics. But that, coupled with how it was phrased, makes me assume that the poster's posterior is doing most of the typing. With those concessions aside, it's time now for my actual shot: DNA is very very new on the Grand Scientific Timeline--it took millenia to understand the equations the govern the simplest physics on a macro scale, and you're citing that not having uncovered all the minuteia of the most miniscule interactions in a cell in a scant 50 years as cause enough to reconsider a scientific (read: provable) theory? Make your blowjob payable to Jay Straw, dumbass.
To touch upon the "equal discussion" bit, however briefly, equal discussion isn't even really possible as another poster pointed out; ID,at its core, is not provable scientifically. It's a belief.
Then your suffering will be eternal, thrown into the pit where there will be "wailing and gnashing of teeth".
Which is certainly the sign of a benevolent creator, no?
Benevolent doesn't have to go hand in hand with being a pushover
I'm not sure you want to go there, because if the universe can exist without cause that means it exists outside the natural order of things, because the natural order is for cause and effect.
Not if the 'natural order of things' is a byproduct/manifestation of the universe
Just wanted to say excellent post, and I do not envy your allegiance with a group whose 'poorly trained teachers' and poorly trained students seem to be the most vocal out of you. Keep it up.
Oh, I'm sorry--I thought you were saying 2-3 generations was too long. Point taken.
However, if your system works, there're still several reasons to upgrade your OS, not the least of which is security. Also, if all the machines around you getting upgraded, sometimes it's a difficult proposition to stay behind (due to incompatibility in OSes/protocols).
Legacy support is only good for a limited span of time.
So when you have to tell your boss/spouse that, even though they know the hardware well and it works fine, you need an extra $2,000 to upgrade it, how do you do it?
Wow...what a general post from the parent...
General Post--wasn't he the guy who defeated the Quakers in the Battle for Bran Hill in the late 1890's? Too bad Kellogg used his amazing powers of abstinence to rein in what would've otherwise been an amazing empire.
Yarr sayeth me--if ye think that ye gets a console with named buttons, then ye be overly optimistic. Neigh--what is nigh for ye is an atari with dirty paddle controllers...and a copy of pac man
1. Insult Bush ...
2.
3. Profit!
How, exactly, is that Bush's America? He's a driveling douche bag who has no place behind a large store of nuclear weapons, but c'mon--justify that for me, or, for that matter, anyone reading your post with a critical eye.
I think the difference lies in implementation--if I change my WM in linux, the old one goes away...in windows, if I want to alter my GUI, I need to run a GUI on top. That takes up needless resources, slows things down, and means that there's a much higher probability that the system will get errors and crash. Just far too messy for my tastes.
I clicked, and it told me that if I earned enough money through them, I could look like this--and no one would care because of how totally rich I'd be from m@rketing!
:'(
I suppose, being the dhammabum, you might call that the Johnathon Livingston Flock of Seagull haircut?
I miss Hamish
Karen Carpenter*
You can DTFM (do the fucking math), but you can't RTFA (read the fucking article)? The 500k was restitution, not fines--a previous post explained the difference. He was sentenced to 18 months as well.
Seriously douche, the AC has it right--even all of these IANAL's got it and you didn't. Perhaps R-ingTFA or even half the posts above you would've explained it so even you could understand it.
That's the first post in a while I haven't replied specifically to bitch. In fact, I'm not replying to say anything except well put, and we need a helluva lot more people like you on /.
Uh oh... I just described GTA.
RUN! IT'S THE GOVERNMENT!!
Government? You mean Hilary? Why should we run, what's she gonna do? Let us cheat on her to death?
He DIDN'T mention Ramanujan at all. It's like saying "The tsunami hit a number of Asian countries, lots of Asians died". Meanwhile, in more important news, the Michel Jackson trial...
/still/ don't submit your view of utopia. I mean, you're absolutely right--I'm a redneck. That is, I'd be a redneck if my long hair didn't cover my neck and I weren't going to art museums and disagreeing with Bush so often. Dumb ass.
a) He DID mention Ramanujan--he just didn't do so by name. What I was trying to say before it was obfuscated by some lame ass subterfuge about the media (carried further by some horrid attempt to allude to your own wordliness by condemning the masses because of what they think matters) is that if the author were truly commiting 'racial slight', he would've failed to give any mention of Ramanujan at all--this, mind you, includes mentioning "Indian math guy"
FOAD redneck
You make a statement of that magnitude, and yet
The reason could well have been carelessness, but it can easily be interpreted as a cultural and racial slight
If the arthor were truly commiting 'racial slight', why would he've mentioned Ramanujan in the first place?
FOAD redneck.
lol I've never heard FOAD--what's it mean? For the record I never have (and doubt I ever will) vote for the Grand ol' Party--liberals can kiss my ass, too. Libertarians and indepents all the way.