...but WAIT! If you buy within the next fifteen minutes, we'll not only DOUBLE YOUR ORDER, we'll through in this Super Shammy(tm), a $19.99 value, FREE! Call now! Operators are standing by!
Real guys stop by the local coffeehouse to pick up their favorite drinks and walk over to the bookstore to browse through the books while discussing the merits of the movie.
I was expecting a rehash of the Blair Witch Project. Somethings that made it refreshingly different: 1) The main character, for me, wasn't Rob. It was the guy holding the camera. He was a complete idiot, but I loved him. 2) I thought there was clear character progression for Rob, from complete, insensitive jerk to heroic. 3) Clear resolution on the real story, which is Rob's relationship to whats-her-face. 4) Kick-ass special effects.
One caveat about the movie: bring Dramamine. Lots of it. I had two friends with me who missed the whole second half of the movie because they couldn't look at the screen.
"You know, the only thing wrong with Apple is that sometimes I just think they're too perfect. I just feel unworthy around the greatness of my iPhone and 24-inch iMac."
A good analogy is Martin Luther. Today, he is still respected because of his earlier writings propounding tolerance, compassion, and grace. His senility and subsequent violently anti-Semitic ravings do not, thankfully, invalidate the inspiration drawn from his earlier work.
Shakespeare said (and I probably misquote), "The evil a man does lives on after him; the good is oft interred with his bones." Sometimes, thankfully, Shakespeare is wrong. I think it's entirely appropriate to remember the good things Bobby Fischer accomplished rather than focusing on the negative aspects of his later life.
Many of us protestants believe that the medieval Catholic church was a political and mercantile institution, not a religious one. But that's a whole 'nother flame war. And yeah, I think Calvin was a Christian, but his views on torture, witchcraft, and religious dissent were wrong and misguided. His actions, I cannot defend.
I stand by my comment on the crusades, however. There was absolutely zero religious benefit (and much detriment) to them; and yet many, many people were able to line their pockets and acquire lands and titles through them. When any institution that spans for than, say, ten countries tells you why they're doing something, you ought not take it at face value.
He already addressed the connection between the crusades and religion. It was a cover for an almost purely mercantile venture. I doubt that, had the crusades been a truly religious endeavor, they would have sacked the Byzantine Empire (at the pecuniary "request" of Venician merchants, and leading it to its eventual fall to the Turks). The crusaders also took great care to kill as many Christians in the holy land as they could (can't have any of the original owners around to claim land, or anything; would be terribly inconvenient).
Religion is usually an insufficient reason to make anyone do anything. It's money that makes the world go 'round.
There are (many) "logical" proofs of god that are not self-referential (the only one I know of that is is the Descartes "proof", which is not seriously studied in systematic theology).
I do not suppose you would accept any of them, however. None of them rely on observed phenomenon; rather, they draw heavily from commonly understood philosophical axioms about the nature of "being". Science and history are about fact, and philosophy (the realm of religion) is about truth (in the sense that you know something to be *true* if you believe it). Science is about what can be observed, and religion about what can be understood (aligning "what we know to be true" with "objective truth" being the purpose of both fields).
Both, however, rely on inductive reasoning. One is not made less logical than the other simply by refusing to accept its axioms (especially when the axioms are trivially correct; stuff like "a thing either exists or does not exist").
I must apologize for not being able to actually give any of these proofs. I don't fully understand them, and they were written by smarter people than me; I only learned as much about inductive logic as I needed to get through my math major in college. It is my understanding that they are widely (but not fully) accepted in theological circles.
"Irrationality" is any thought that defies the predetermined narrative (as defined by the mainstream). In the 17th-century, it was any man of science. Today, it's any man of faith. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Their time for collecting information is limited. Why should they waste it on an outlet that is self-evidently warping the information on the subjects of interest to them (intentionally or otherwise), when it might be better spent reading other sources.
I don't have time to pitch a hissy-fit every time my particular political persuasion gets smeared or name-called. You do what you do with all news: skim it to glean soft, chewy nougats of wisdom, and discard the cheap almonds and chocolate coating. That last statement may not be the most apt analogy, but I am hungry, so it's all I got.
Yeah, you can't be too careful; you might hear a contrary opinion. You must nurture your beliefs, and protect them from criticism. It's kinda like Scientology that way.
Oh, no. You don't get it. "Smearing" is when you defy the predefined narrative of the Ron Paul campaign. "Truthing" is when you make up bat-shit insane conspiracy theories, like TNR faking the documents as some RP supporters suggest.
Except the questionable material was in a newsletter had his signature at the end (whether forged or not, who knows?), and contained first-person references to himself and his wife. The clear intention is that the reader believe that Ron Paul wrote it.
What's the big deal about some newsletters? You're a complete tool if you let this bias you against Ron Paul.
It's yet another sign that Ron Paul is not discriminating enough in who he chooses to associate himself with. A president doesn't rule alone: an administration is run, by and large, by the advisers and cabinet members a president surrounds himself with. I don't like the people who surround Ron Paul.
So you say his newsletters were forged for him and signed by his subordinates for the last 20 years without him even reading them? Is that how he plans to run America? Maybe he can hire his Stormfront friends to run domestic policy for him, and sign the bills in his name.
Feeding babies an exclusive diet of soy milk results in malnutrition. Recently, an Atlanta vegan couple were jailed for negligence when their 6-week-old child died of malnutrition. Anything you feed a baby needs to be heavily fortified, and only breast milk or specially prepared formulas are appropriate.
In general, a parent should never put their personal dietary preference ahead of the safety and health of their child.
Slashdot Mirror
They're talking about adult stem cells, which are not very interesting because there's no political disagreement about them.
I speak fluent American, and this ain't makin' no sense.
...but WAIT! If you buy within the next fifteen minutes, we'll not only DOUBLE YOUR ORDER, we'll through in this Super Shammy(tm), a $19.99 value, FREE! Call now! Operators are standing by!
You should report it before someone gets hurt.
I was expecting a rehash of the Blair Witch Project. Somethings that made it refreshingly different:
1) The main character, for me, wasn't Rob. It was the guy holding the camera. He was a complete idiot, but I loved him.
2) I thought there was clear character progression for Rob, from complete, insensitive jerk to heroic.
3) Clear resolution on the real story, which is Rob's relationship to whats-her-face.
4) Kick-ass special effects.
One caveat about the movie: bring Dramamine. Lots of it. I had two friends with me who missed the whole second half of the movie because they couldn't look at the screen.
*sprays you with head giblets and +2 vorpal skull fragments*
This can get as ugly as you want it to be.
"You know, the only thing wrong with Apple is that sometimes I just think they're too perfect. I just feel unworthy around the greatness of my iPhone and 24-inch iMac."
*ducks*
*runs*
A struct is a class in C++, except that members are public by default instead of private.
I am not aware if structs violate any public decency laws, however. I prefer only letting friends see private members.
A good analogy is Martin Luther. Today, he is still respected because of his earlier writings propounding tolerance, compassion, and grace. His senility and subsequent violently anti-Semitic ravings do not, thankfully, invalidate the inspiration drawn from his earlier work.
Shakespeare said (and I probably misquote), "The evil a man does lives on after him; the good is oft interred with his bones." Sometimes, thankfully, Shakespeare is wrong. I think it's entirely appropriate to remember the good things Bobby Fischer accomplished rather than focusing on the negative aspects of his later life.
Many of us protestants believe that the medieval Catholic church was a political and mercantile institution, not a religious one. But that's a whole 'nother flame war. And yeah, I think Calvin was a Christian, but his views on torture, witchcraft, and religious dissent were wrong and misguided. His actions, I cannot defend.
I stand by my comment on the crusades, however. There was absolutely zero religious benefit (and much detriment) to them; and yet many, many people were able to line their pockets and acquire lands and titles through them. When any institution that spans for than, say, ten countries tells you why they're doing something, you ought not take it at face value.
Pecan logs for the win.
He already addressed the connection between the crusades and religion. It was a cover for an almost purely mercantile venture. I doubt that, had the crusades been a truly religious endeavor, they would have sacked the Byzantine Empire (at the pecuniary "request" of Venician merchants, and leading it to its eventual fall to the Turks). The crusaders also took great care to kill as many Christians in the holy land as they could (can't have any of the original owners around to claim land, or anything; would be terribly inconvenient).
Religion is usually an insufficient reason to make anyone do anything. It's money that makes the world go 'round.
There are (many) "logical" proofs of god that are not self-referential (the only one I know of that is is the Descartes "proof", which is not seriously studied in systematic theology).
I do not suppose you would accept any of them, however. None of them rely on observed phenomenon; rather, they draw heavily from commonly understood philosophical axioms about the nature of "being". Science and history are about fact, and philosophy (the realm of religion) is about truth (in the sense that you know something to be *true* if you believe it). Science is about what can be observed, and religion about what can be understood (aligning "what we know to be true" with "objective truth" being the purpose of both fields).
Both, however, rely on inductive reasoning. One is not made less logical than the other simply by refusing to accept its axioms (especially when the axioms are trivially correct; stuff like "a thing either exists or does not exist").
I must apologize for not being able to actually give any of these proofs. I don't fully understand them, and they were written by smarter people than me; I only learned as much about inductive logic as I needed to get through my math major in college. It is my understanding that they are widely (but not fully) accepted in theological circles.
"Irrationality" is any thought that defies the predetermined narrative (as defined by the mainstream). In the 17th-century, it was any man of science. Today, it's any man of faith. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Yeah, you can't be too careful; you might hear a contrary opinion. You must nurture your beliefs, and protect them from criticism. It's kinda like Scientology that way.
And all Ron's people said, "Paul-men."
Number Munchers on an Apple IIGS. The only game. All other are merely pretenders.
Oh, no. You don't get it. "Smearing" is when you defy the predefined narrative of the Ron Paul campaign. "Truthing" is when you make up bat-shit insane conspiracy theories, like TNR faking the documents as some RP supporters suggest.
I did. I found this. He's the least toxic candidate to neo-nazi's! Hooray! The reLOVEution! Sieg Heil!
Except the questionable material was in a newsletter had his signature at the end (whether forged or not, who knows?), and contained first-person references to himself and his wife. The clear intention is that the reader believe that Ron Paul wrote it.
So you say his newsletters were forged for him and signed by his subordinates for the last 20 years without him even reading them? Is that how he plans to run America? Maybe he can hire his Stormfront friends to run domestic policy for him, and sign the bills in his name.
Feeding babies an exclusive diet of soy milk results in malnutrition. Recently, an Atlanta vegan couple were jailed for negligence when their 6-week-old child died of malnutrition. Anything you feed a baby needs to be heavily fortified, and only breast milk or specially prepared formulas are appropriate.
In general, a parent should never put their personal dietary preference ahead of the safety and health of their child.