No. This is basically proof that they were holding (possibly empty) beer cans and tropical glasses with umbrellas and pieces of fruit in them. Neither of those activities are illegal for anyone, even if it's stupid to be seen doing so for whatever reason. While not illegal, if you read the athletic code they're probably against the terms. At the school I work for attending any party where there is an illegal activity and NOT reporting is also against the terms of the code. Legality isn't the issue, it's the terms of the code of conduct that they signed, and what they were caught doing was against the terms outlined in the code.
I really can't see where they get the right to take any action based on what people do outside of school. They probably signed an athletic code which states that they will not participate in underage drinking/illegal activities. The pictures are proof that they violated this code, and they are completely justified in taking action.
who made like good little fascists and punished said students for things that happened off campus, which should be firmly outside the jurisdiction of the school administration but unfortunately is not Unless they were in sports and signed an athletic code that prohibits them from doing the already illegal act of drinking. Then they broke that code and have to face the punishments prescribed by the code which are often suspensions/disqualifications that can affect scholarships.
What we have here is somebody who for whatever reason got a bunch of kids in trouble with an "authority" who should be spending his time (and our money) dealing with problems on his own campus If the rules in the agreement say you will not take part in any (no matter where) underage drinking/illegal activity then they ARE dealing with problems on their own campus - the problem of students not following the rules they agreed to.
Speaking of which it will really suck for those porn companies that offer 3 day trials or whatever, in those three days you could download everything they have. Not that I would ever sign up for one of those, but all of those that I've signed up for you haven't been able to access their whole library of past content - usually only their latest few installments.
The bills being considered are only about forensic evidence presented in court. Darn you with your "facts" and "reading the article"! Where's the hearsay and made up statistics, dammit!
I imagine the first thing that will come up is the cost followed by driver's being unwilling to give up control of their cars. I'd be impressed if you got that far. If a company is selling this technology, our litigation happy society would hold them responsible the second even so much as one person dies do to a computer error or malfunction. I don't think any company really wants to take that risk. People of course would be ignoring the fact that hundreds of thousands of lives would be saved by the technology, but that's besides the point because they can blame a company instead of their own crappy driving.
To clarify, we never said it wasn't illegal. We're saying it's not the same thing as theft. I don't know how you can fail to understand this and continually put words in our mouths.
It doesn't need to be "without" a physical medium - it just needs to be without any physical media other than what the person already has (i.e. copying something to a flash drive that I own doesn't cost them anything).
Ah, the usual "X has more Y than Z, so it must be better" strawman. With all the usual flaws. Didn't we have this discussion at least 50 times already?
So let me see, we will have:
The windos fanboys drooling "told you so"
The Mac fanboys screaming "it ain't so"
The math fanboys going on about how you should trust statistics unless you've forged them yourself
The nitpicker faction revealing that they are comparing different kinds of bugs
The wannabe-blackhatters outlining that these vulnerabilities were more vulnerable than those vulnerabilities and should count more
The I-read-the-web-all-day group pointing out a contradicting article in some other magazine
The tinfoil-hat wearers telling us that it's all bullshit anyways and the article is only meant to get us upset and create ad impressions
The meta-commentators who point out that we've already been through all this and do we really need to re-hash this discussion again?:-)
You seem to have forgotten two:
The list makers who will show everyone (using a list) exactly what will appear in the comments.
The annoying jerks who point out things the list makers missed.
Why is it that in every damn RTS game you have this stupid mission where you have to take a bunch of your critters through a lenghty, winding corridor? Is there anyone who really enjoys those missions? Nobody I talked to does. Everyone wanted to play RTS games to harvest resources, spend them on an army and drown the enemy in a mass battle. Does anyone really like those "I have only 10 infantery men and need to bring them home safe" missions? sorry to contradict you, but I actually liked those mission, they add a lot to the rpg element of the game. Have you ever considered that usually variety is a _good_ thing in a game, since it makes it more likely to attract different players?
Besides, it's just a freaking mission! If you can't be bothered to go through it just use the cheats! "It's just a freaking mission" that nobody would miss if it was gone (meaning, I don't think there's anyone who wouldn't buy an RTS game because it lacked that type of mission). Yes they enhance the "rpg element" but when I want to play an RTS I want to play an RTS, if I wanted to role play I'd play an rpg. When you're playing poker with your buddies, after five hands do you stop and say, okay now we need to play a game of connect four and then we can go back to playing poker. No! They're different types of games and when I want to play that type of game I will, don't put just a little bit of one inside the other just for a little bit - either blend them into a unique creation or let me play the damn type of game I wanted to play.
Sorry for the rant. I just really hate those types of missions, too:P
Re:The worlds of Belief and Reason are Orthagonal
on
Ye Olde World Charm
·
· Score: 1
Only moderately related to your topic...
As anyone who has attempted to understand the feminine mind can attest, reason isn't everything.
Humans are eminently predictable, and the female of the species is no exception.
It's merely a matter of having enough information to be able to make at least a reasonably accurate stab at predicting what the response will be in any given situation. The more information, the more accurate your prediction, much like predicting the weather.
That doesn't mean that the weather doesn't operate along guidelines that can be analyzed, does it?
Really, that's an issue I've always found- people give up when they see a complicated issue. "It's not logical, because I can't see the logic behind it."
And yet that description belies the flaw: The fact that you, or I, personally, cannot determine the logic behind a system does not mean that a system does not operate along logical lines.
It means we have yet to determine what those lines are. I think he was saying that feminine minds are not logical (3: capable of reasoning in a clear and consistent manner) where as you are saying they are logical (2: Based on earlier or otherwise known statements, events, or conditions). Something can be both logical and not logical at the same time as long as we're using different meanings of the word logical in each sense:P
vulva vulva vulva penis vulva?
I'm not sure whether I should be afraid of your mind or the site... Really? I'm not sure whether I should be afraid of his mind or immediately go to the site...
It still conforms to the article/summary, you just had an easier time learning how to learn - anyone can still learn how to learn if they take the time to learn it.
But to get up at 5 AM, I'd have to go to sleep at 10 AM. Which reduces my time to do the other things I need to do by another hour. Well if you're only up for 5 hours I can see how you're running out of time:P
Hell, for all we know you're a pedophile, if not MORE of a pedophile than (insert famous pedophile, I can't think of one). I never said you were a pedophile, I simply hinted at the possibility of it.
There's just something about that wording that seems like it does more than hint.
Okay, to be fair, you have laptops listed in the can't upgrade section. I don't know of a single PC laptop that you can upgrade the video on, so apples to apples it's more along the lines of:
Macs that have upgradeable video cards:
Mac Pro
Macs that don't have upgradeable video cards:
iMac
Mac Mini
If Vista's uptake trend continues, it should pass Mac OS X in Web usage share by the end of August. Why stop at August - in a mere 9 years it will have 110% of the market!
I'm curious to see how the release of Leopard will change these numbers, I know I'm waiting to buy a mac (replacing my PC, I already have an ibook, not that you care.) until after Leopard.
this is scary to think we might eat these crops and become sterile.
Do you know how digestion works? I think you might have some misconceptions - it does not involve incorporation of the DNA/genes of the food into the eater.
I never brought up the marriage part, I was only responding to the "our founding fathers were Christian" part, which is something I can find no evidence for.
If you could show evidence that a majority of the founders WERE Christian, you might have something. Or even a statement stating that a large chunk of them were. But I cannot find a single one that states openly that they were Christian - only statements that say they aren't. Until I see a statement saying otherwise, I'm going to believe that they weren't Christian, as that's what they've gone on record as saying. As such I don't like people stating the founding fathers were Christian unless they can provide some previously undiscovered evidence.
I am seriously tired of people spouting that the founders were "some type of Christian". THIS IS NOT TRUE! Some people were, but not those who we generally consider the "fathers".
The Constitution never once mentions a deity, because the founding fathers wanted to keep their new country "religion-neutral." Our Founding Fathers were an eclectic collection of Atheists, Deists, Christians, Freemasons and Agnostics.
George Washington, the Father of our country, and John Adams (Second President of the USA) CLEARLY stated in the 1796 Treaty of Tripoli: "The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian Religion."
Washington rarely attended church and instead followed a popular 18th century philosophy called Deism -- a Star Wars-esque philosophy that believed in a cosmic energy or big-ass universal "Force." The dictionary says that Deism is "a system of thought advocating natural religion based on human reason rather than revelation," that had nothing to do with Christian principles. A Spinoza-esque pantheism - NOT CHRISTIAN!
James Madison, original mastermind of our Constitution, was an Atheist to the core who loved skewering Christianity. In 1785 he wrote, "What have been [Christianity's] fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."
Thomas Jefferson, who sat down and authored The Declaration of Independence, rarely missed an opportunity to laugh at Christianity. In a letter to John Adams in 1823, he wrote: "The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus...will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."
In 1814, Tommy J. wrote about the Bible's Old and New Testaments, "The whole history of these books is so defective and doubtful -- evidence that parts have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds."
In fact, it was President Jefferson himself who first wrote (to a Baptist church group in 1802), "The First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between Church and State." Therefore, when Jefferson talked about "Nature's God," the "Creator" and "divine Providence " in the Declaration that he wrote, he was being a hippie and referring to a general cosmic energy, a pantheistic god -- not the Christian God.
America is not a Christian nation. Period. Our Constitution derived from the post-Christian Enlightenment values of reason and truth - not from Christianity!
Slashdot Mirror
To clarify, we never said it wasn't illegal. We're saying it's not the same thing as theft. I don't know how you can fail to understand this and continually put words in our mouths.
It doesn't need to be "without" a physical medium - it just needs to be without any physical media other than what the person already has (i.e. copying something to a flash drive that I own doesn't cost them anything).
So let me see, we will have:
- The windos fanboys drooling "told you so"
- The Mac fanboys screaming "it ain't so"
- The math fanboys going on about how you should trust statistics unless you've forged them yourself
- The nitpicker faction revealing that they are comparing different kinds of bugs
- The wannabe-blackhatters outlining that these vulnerabilities were more vulnerable than those vulnerabilities and should count more
- The I-read-the-web-all-day group pointing out a contradicting article in some other magazine
- The tinfoil-hat wearers telling us that it's all bullshit anyways and the article is only meant to get us upset and create ad impressions
- The meta-commentators who point out that we've already been through all this and do we really need to re-hash this discussion again?
:-)
You seem to have forgotten two:Besides, it's just a freaking mission! If you can't be bothered to go through it just use the cheats! "It's just a freaking mission" that nobody would miss if it was gone (meaning, I don't think there's anyone who wouldn't buy an RTS game because it lacked that type of mission). Yes they enhance the "rpg element" but when I want to play an RTS I want to play an RTS, if I wanted to role play I'd play an rpg. When you're playing poker with your buddies, after five hands do you stop and say, okay now we need to play a game of connect four and then we can go back to playing poker. No! They're different types of games and when I want to play that type of game I will, don't put just a little bit of one inside the other just for a little bit - either blend them into a unique creation or let me play the damn type of game I wanted to play.
Sorry for the rant. I just really hate those types of missions, too
Humans are eminently predictable, and the female of the species is no exception.
It's merely a matter of having enough information to be able to make at least a reasonably accurate stab at predicting what the response will be in any given situation. The more information, the more accurate your prediction, much like predicting the weather.
That doesn't mean that the weather doesn't operate along guidelines that can be analyzed, does it?
Really, that's an issue I've always found- people give up when they see a complicated issue. "It's not logical, because I can't see the logic behind it."
And yet that description belies the flaw: The fact that you, or I, personally, cannot determine the logic behind a system does not mean that a system does not operate along logical lines.
It means we have yet to determine what those lines are. I think he was saying that feminine minds are not logical (3: capable of reasoning in a clear and consistent manner) where as you are saying they are logical (2: Based on earlier or otherwise known statements, events, or conditions). Something can be both logical and not logical at the same time as long as we're using different meanings of the word logical in each sense
It still conforms to the article/summary, you just had an easier time learning how to learn - anyone can still learn how to learn if they take the time to learn it.
Hell, for all we know you're a pedophile, if not MORE of a pedophile than (insert famous pedophile, I can't think of one). I never said you were a pedophile, I simply hinted at the possibility of it.
There's just something about that wording that seems like it does more than hint.
Okay, to be fair, you have laptops listed in the can't upgrade section. I don't know of a single PC laptop that you can upgrade the video on, so apples to apples it's more along the lines of: Macs that have upgradeable video cards: Mac Pro Macs that don't have upgradeable video cards: iMac Mac Mini
I'm curious to see how the release of Leopard will change these numbers, I know I'm waiting to buy a mac (replacing my PC, I already have an ibook, not that you care.) until after Leopard.
I never brought up the marriage part, I was only responding to the "our founding fathers were Christian" part, which is something I can find no evidence for.
If you could show evidence that a majority of the founders WERE Christian, you might have something. Or even a statement stating that a large chunk of them were. But I cannot find a single one that states openly that they were Christian - only statements that say they aren't. Until I see a statement saying otherwise, I'm going to believe that they weren't Christian, as that's what they've gone on record as saying. As such I don't like people stating the founding fathers were Christian unless they can provide some previously undiscovered evidence.
I am seriously tired of people spouting that the founders were "some type of Christian". THIS IS NOT TRUE! Some people were, but not those who we generally consider the "fathers".
The Constitution never once mentions a deity, because the founding fathers wanted to keep their new country "religion-neutral." Our Founding Fathers were an eclectic collection of Atheists, Deists, Christians, Freemasons and Agnostics.
George Washington, the Father of our country, and John Adams (Second President of the USA) CLEARLY stated in the 1796 Treaty of Tripoli: "The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian Religion."
Washington rarely attended church and instead followed a popular 18th century philosophy called Deism -- a Star Wars-esque philosophy that believed in a cosmic energy or big-ass universal "Force." The dictionary says that Deism is "a system of thought advocating natural religion based on human reason rather than revelation," that had nothing to do with Christian principles. A Spinoza-esque pantheism - NOT CHRISTIAN!
James Madison, original mastermind of our Constitution, was an Atheist to the core who loved skewering Christianity. In 1785 he wrote, "What have been [Christianity's] fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."
Thomas Jefferson, who sat down and authored The Declaration of Independence, rarely missed an opportunity to laugh at Christianity. In a letter to John Adams in 1823, he wrote: "The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus...will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."
In 1814, Tommy J. wrote about the Bible's Old and New Testaments, "The whole history of these books is so defective and doubtful -- evidence that parts have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds."
In fact, it was President Jefferson himself who first wrote (to a Baptist church group in 1802), "The First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between Church and State." Therefore, when Jefferson talked about "Nature's God," the "Creator" and "divine Providence " in the Declaration that he wrote, he was being a hippie and referring to a general cosmic energy, a pantheistic god -- not the Christian God.
America is not a Christian nation. Period. Our Constitution derived from the post-Christian Enlightenment values of reason and truth - not from Christianity!