Yes. The Jews were always monotheistic, although nice try in trying to maintain a fringe theory as mainstream. And the "proof" you'll try and toss out (like Yahweh's female counterpart, etc) were all random breakwaway sects. It's akin to saying the USA was a communist nation in the 1950, and cite evidence of communist party members as proof of this. Oh, and when you do produce "proof" such, please cite some references (web pages need not be cited. Just cite some authors. Thanks).
The Torah was re-written around 500BC to remove polytheistic references (as the Jews converted to monotheism) and to either re-wrote Genesis and Exodus to make Egyptians the bad guys (due to recent wars with them), or just made the story up at that time.
Complete guess. I have a degree in Middle Eastern Studies and we learn many theories about bible origin. That theory is completely theoretical and has absolutely no proof whatsoever. It does have a few clever essays written about it by a few professors, but then again there are hundreds of other theories that are also written by Ivy League professors.
The only way to prove your so-called "fact" that the Torahwas changed in 500BCE is to show me a Torah from 550BCE and then compare it. Oh wait, how convenient that there are no Torahs from that era. But there is one from about 2000 years ago, and it differs a few letters from the current Torah. I'd say emperical evidence at least shows your idea to be "speculation" and nowhere near "fact."
or, if you're looking for some crack/heroin/illegal fireworks, drive down to Wegman's on that backroad near Route 13 and maybe you'll find a nice crackhead to trade for it...
That still has nothing to do with privacy. Unless you make the argument that Lipton was indoors on private property and the guy taking the picture broke in to take the picture. I think MySpace does tagging too, but I don't know. Either way, in no way shape or form is this about privacy. The pictures were of PUBLIC things. The fact that someone else posted a record of a public event that he attended without his knowledge is irrelevant.
a) then de-tag yourself. I do it all the time on facebook. 95% of the time, it's because my eyes are closed or I don't like how I look, but yes, 5% of the time it's because it's things I don't want/need everyone in the world to be able to see. b) I agree with what GP says. The pictures aren't of the "look, a frat boy - what a douche! look a guy who drinks! let's bust him!" I mean, most people drink. And yes, most people, by the desired effect of said drinking, will do stupid things when drunk. You can't go to a divorce hearing and say the father should lose all custody of children because the 3 times a year he drinks, he slurs his words. No, this is a "lets hear from the girl's mother about how one night her daughter was paralyzed from the neck down, and this guy has absolutely no remorse and posts pictures mocking the event online."
Yep. People like her are the reason why religion exists. Let me explain. Despite her reason and common sense telling her that it's not a good idea, she's going to continue doing it simply because "it's not illegal." The only way to get her to actually change her behaviour (and that's a big maybe) is to have some sort of "punishment" go along with the action.
So wait... people are only religious because it isn't illegal to be religious? Um, right. And as for your other point - making said religion illegal has worked so wonderfully in the past. Are you actually nuts or do you just like eating them?
IAAMS (I am a medical student), and medical journals are PARAMOUNT to the field of medicine. I mean, after medical school, you have 3-5 years or so of residency (depending on your field), and then NOTHING forever. So basically, a guy in a private practice who graduated in 1970 has no real exposure to new medicines, techniques, surgeries and other therapies other than monthly periodicals. These are very important, and peer-reviewed and the main way doctors learn new concepts outside of hospitals, conventions and other settings which half of doctors will never encounter.
While we're at it, I'll vent that this is exactly why pharmaceutical reps are in many ways very GOOD for medicine (and therefore, good for patients like you and me). Most doctors will find a class of drug that they like and prescribe that one forever. If a doc prescribes Lovastatin (cholesterol lowering drug), he/she will probably do that out of habit for all high cholesterol patients, and never look at Zetia, Somatostatin or other therapies. Drug reps introduce them to new drugs. Only a fool would prescribe the new drug simply because the hot rep brought them sandwiches. Of 10 reps that come by, maybe one will convince the doctor to use that product. But it's still a good thing docs are exposed to them. Once you find a drug that works for a specific problem, with little (or acceptable) side effects, most docs would have little reason to say "Gee, this drug is pretty darn good. Let me try and find a new drug for no reason that may or may not have different effects." The rep will introduce the new product, usually supply a New England Journal of Medicine article studying it, and the doc will say "thanks," eat the sandwich, and decide for him/herself if the drug is right.
So in conclusion, not all doctors (and in fact, very few) are tech-wizards or Slashdotophiles. The chief of surgery at my hospital (BRILLIANT world-renowned guy here in Manhattan) could not turn on his laptop and asked me to run his powerpoint show for him. If you're going to cut him off from "obsolete" paper journals and rely on online journals for him to get information, you can safely assume that he will never again read another study that is post-2008.
My Answer: YOU'RE ALL TOO OLD!!!!
Sorry guys, but I'm a medical student in pediatrics, and I can tell youI see kids everyday, and every boy (and a lot of girls too, let's not discriminate) LOOOOOOVES Star Wars. And guess what? They LOOOOVE Jar Jar too. They get Jar Jar bookbags, folder, binders, etc. Star Wars is cool to them.
And you know what? Being born in 1979, I notice a huge difference between the people who were 5 when ROTJ came out and the people who were 25. The difference? My friends and I love the Ewoks. Kids love the Ewoks. Star Wars is a movie made FOR KIDS! Or... at least, people with the imagination of a kid.
I read some of these complaints, and some are valid (even if I disagree). Don't like Hayden? Fine (I did). Don't like Jar Jar? OK, big deal. But holy moly... you people are complaining about "Landing a Star Cruiser on a landing strip! Lame!"
You people are just way too old (in your mind I guess) to enjoy these movies. Not to say not liking them is illogical or stupid, but most of the complaints here to me are disproven by those points being exactly what kids love about them.
IAAMS (I am a medical student), but even before I started I assumed it was pretty much common-knowledge that humans have a LOT of iron in their bodies (Hemoglobin being one of the most important sources, and in every Red Blood Cell in your body).
Oh yeah? Like the movies of the 1910s, like the ones staring Charlie Chaplin?
On the Top 250 of IMDb, I can see 6 movies from 1920s, 14 from 1930s, 24 from 1940s (that's 18 % of the Top 250).
Yes. Exactly. In 100 years, when Gaming is a century old, and there's a "Top 100 Games of All Time" poll, you'll see 80-85% of them in the futuristic territory. But I guarantee there will be a dozen from 1980-2020 as well.
Good Samaritan laws dont hold up in court if youre a Medical Professional. Ie Nurse, Doctor.
Yes they do. Your statement is absolutely FALSE. IAAMS (I am a medical student), and this exact question was in one of my Board exam review books. If you drive by a roadside accident, if you are a doctor/nurse/etc then OF COURSE you should be encouraged to help out since you're the one with the knowledge. I mean, this game player did a great thing, but I'm sure an EMS guy driving by would be even better, you know? And Good Samaritan Laws are there to help you do this good deed. You aren't being compensated, and you can't be punished either.
That's a great accomplishment! If only you'd recorded it somehow, because I tried doing something similar a few years ago (but lost track of the game count). I remember the directions said something like "it is theorized that every combination is solvable, but this has not been proven."
Sorry guys, but I'm a medical student in pediatrics, and I can tell youI see kids everyday, and every boy (and a lot of girls too, let's not discriminate) LOOOOOOVES Star Wars. And guess what? They LOOOOVE Jar Jar too. They get Jar Jar bookbags, folder, binders, etc. Star Wars is cool to them.
And you know what? Being born in 1979, I notice a huge difference between the people who were 5 when ROTJ came out and the people who were 25. The difference? My friends and I love the Ewoks. Kids love the Ewoks. Star Wars is a movie made FOR KIDS! Or... at least, people with the imagination of a kid.
I read some of these complaints, and some are valid (even if I disagree). Don't like Hayden? Fine (I did). Don't like Jar Jar? OK, big deal. But holy moly... you people are complaining about "Landing a Star Cruiser on a landing strip! Lame!"
You people are just way too old (in your mind I guess) to enjoy these movies. Not to say not liking them is illogical or stupid, but most of the complaints here to me are disproven by those points being exactly what kids love about them.
If game companies were smart they would give playable demos to the mags like crazy. Too bad I have yet to see one demo disk for the Wii, it might have prevented me from buying NBA 07, Rapala Fishing and that horrible piece of trash chicken shoot (I thought my 5 & 7 year olds would like it, I was horribly wrong)
Then I guess they're not so dumb for not including demos of crappy games, eh? Oh, and a tip... next time try some of the game reviews online before purchasing a non-AAA game (Rapala fishing got an awful 3.0/10 - VERY unheard of). I like IGN's reviews personally. Not because I agree with them (I often don't), but they rarely give a game 9+ without it being excellent.
100% agreed. About the ONLY thing that doesn't compare to today's games is the sheer graphical power. It matches or exceeds today's games in music (Trent Reznor's soundtrack is awesome), gameplay, level design, weapons (I just love the nail gun), multiplayer and overall fun.
Super Mario Bros isn't anything to look at graphically, but I'm playing The Lost Levels more on my Wii than any of my Wii games...
(disclaimer: Steve Squyres was a favorite professor of mine in undergrad)
If you want to know just how amazing these machines are, you *must* read Roving Mars. It is amazing how on several occasions, one person made the difference between utter failure and spectacular success. And often these decisions were against NASA brass, scientist's opinions, and conventional wisdom.
In fact, I have to admit that once the book gets to the point where the Rovers actually land, it gets a little less exciting. The excitement is all in the planning/construction stages, and how it almost didn't work (even though you know it does in the end, it's still exciting). Like, a month before launch, they realize that the parachute doesn't work, or that Opportunity shorted out. Very exciting stuff.
I wonder how many people that are mad at "Fuck Islam" are also members or created groups against Facebook networks like
fuck Israel & Jewish or
fuck all jews and sharon (with a lovely "jew nose" picture and the member "HAHAHAHA ISREALIS CLAIM THEY R RICHER>>>> MY POCKET MONEY CAN BUY 10 JEWISH SLAVE AND MAKE THEM CLEAN MA SHIT")?
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. The Jews were always monotheistic, although nice try in trying to maintain a fringe theory as mainstream. And the "proof" you'll try and toss out (like Yahweh's female counterpart, etc) were all random breakwaway sects. It's akin to saying the USA was a communist nation in the 1950, and cite evidence of communist party members as proof of this. Oh, and when you do produce "proof" such, please cite some references (web pages need not be cited. Just cite some authors. Thanks).
The Torah was re-written around 500BC to remove polytheistic references (as the Jews converted to monotheism) and to either re-wrote Genesis and Exodus to make Egyptians the bad guys (due to recent wars with them), or just made the story up at that time.
Complete guess. I have a degree in Middle Eastern Studies and we learn many theories about bible origin. That theory is completely theoretical and has absolutely no proof whatsoever. It does have a few clever essays written about it by a few professors, but then again there are hundreds of other theories that are also written by Ivy League professors.
The only way to prove your so-called "fact" that the Torahwas changed in 500BCE is to show me a Torah from 550BCE and then compare it. Oh wait, how convenient that there are no Torahs from that era. But there is one from about 2000 years ago, and it differs a few letters from the current Torah. I'd say emperical evidence at least shows your idea to be "speculation" and nowhere near "fact."
or, if you're looking for some crack/heroin/illegal fireworks, drive down to Wegman's on that backroad near Route 13 and maybe you'll find a nice crackhead to trade for it...
yes, but they don't usually caption these drinking-jailbird-costume-wearing pictures "Remorseful?"
nail? meet head.
(well written)
That still has nothing to do with privacy. Unless you make the argument that Lipton was indoors on private property and the guy taking the picture broke in to take the picture. I think MySpace does tagging too, but I don't know. Either way, in no way shape or form is this about privacy. The pictures were of PUBLIC things. The fact that someone else posted a record of a public event that he attended without his knowledge is irrelevant.
a) then de-tag yourself. I do it all the time on facebook. 95% of the time, it's because my eyes are closed or I don't like how I look, but yes, 5% of the time it's because it's things I don't want/need everyone in the world to be able to see. b) I agree with what GP says. The pictures aren't of the "look, a frat boy - what a douche! look a guy who drinks! let's bust him!" I mean, most people drink. And yes, most people, by the desired effect of said drinking, will do stupid things when drunk. You can't go to a divorce hearing and say the father should lose all custody of children because the 3 times a year he drinks, he slurs his words. No, this is a "lets hear from the girl's mother about how one night her daughter was paralyzed from the neck down, and this guy has absolutely no remorse and posts pictures mocking the event online."
Yep. People like her are the reason why religion exists. Let me explain. Despite her reason and common sense telling her that it's not a good idea, she's going to continue doing it simply because "it's not illegal." The only way to get her to actually change her behaviour (and that's a big maybe) is to have some sort of "punishment" go along with the action.
So wait... people are only religious because it isn't illegal to be religious? Um, right. And as for your other point - making said religion illegal has worked so wonderfully in the past. Are you actually nuts or do you just like eating them?
IAAMS (I am a medical student), and medical journals are PARAMOUNT to the field of medicine. I mean, after medical school, you have 3-5 years or so of residency (depending on your field), and then NOTHING forever. So basically, a guy in a private practice who graduated in 1970 has no real exposure to new medicines, techniques, surgeries and other therapies other than monthly periodicals. These are very important, and peer-reviewed and the main way doctors learn new concepts outside of hospitals, conventions and other settings which half of doctors will never encounter.
While we're at it, I'll vent that this is exactly why pharmaceutical reps are in many ways very GOOD for medicine (and therefore, good for patients like you and me). Most doctors will find a class of drug that they like and prescribe that one forever. If a doc prescribes Lovastatin (cholesterol lowering drug), he/she will probably do that out of habit for all high cholesterol patients, and never look at Zetia, Somatostatin or other therapies. Drug reps introduce them to new drugs. Only a fool would prescribe the new drug simply because the hot rep brought them sandwiches. Of 10 reps that come by, maybe one will convince the doctor to use that product. But it's still a good thing docs are exposed to them. Once you find a drug that works for a specific problem, with little (or acceptable) side effects, most docs would have little reason to say "Gee, this drug is pretty darn good. Let me try and find a new drug for no reason that may or may not have different effects." The rep will introduce the new product, usually supply a New England Journal of Medicine article studying it, and the doc will say "thanks," eat the sandwich, and decide for him/herself if the drug is right.
So in conclusion, not all doctors (and in fact, very few) are tech-wizards or Slashdotophiles. The chief of surgery at my hospital (BRILLIANT world-renowned guy here in Manhattan) could not turn on his laptop and asked me to run his powerpoint show for him. If you're going to cut him off from "obsolete" paper journals and rely on online journals for him to get information, you can safely assume that he will never again read another study that is post-2008.
My Answer: YOU'RE ALL TOO OLD!!!! Sorry guys, but I'm a medical student in pediatrics, and I can tell youI see kids everyday, and every boy (and a lot of girls too, let's not discriminate) LOOOOOOVES Star Wars. And guess what? They LOOOOVE Jar Jar too. They get Jar Jar bookbags, folder, binders, etc. Star Wars is cool to them. And you know what? Being born in 1979, I notice a huge difference between the people who were 5 when ROTJ came out and the people who were 25. The difference? My friends and I love the Ewoks. Kids love the Ewoks. Star Wars is a movie made FOR KIDS! Or... at least, people with the imagination of a kid. I read some of these complaints, and some are valid (even if I disagree). Don't like Hayden? Fine (I did). Don't like Jar Jar? OK, big deal. But holy moly... you people are complaining about "Landing a Star Cruiser on a landing strip! Lame!" You people are just way too old (in your mind I guess) to enjoy these movies. Not to say not liking them is illogical or stupid, but most of the complaints here to me are disproven by those points being exactly what kids love about them.
prove to me that you have NO iron in your body.
IAAMS (I am a medical student), but even before I started I assumed it was pretty much common-knowledge that humans have a LOT of iron in their bodies (Hemoglobin being one of the most important sources, and in every Red Blood Cell in your body).
you can always get a Region 0 DVD Player...
Oh yeah? Like the movies of the 1910s, like the ones staring Charlie Chaplin?
On the Top 250 of IMDb, I can see 6 movies from 1920s, 14 from 1930s, 24 from 1940s (that's 18 % of the Top 250).
Yes. Exactly. In 100 years, when Gaming is a century old, and there's a "Top 100 Games of All Time" poll, you'll see 80-85% of them in the futuristic territory. But I guarantee there will be a dozen from 1980-2020 as well.
Good Samaritan laws dont hold up in court if youre a Medical Professional. Ie Nurse, Doctor.
Yes they do. Your statement is absolutely FALSE. IAAMS (I am a medical student), and this exact question was in one of my Board exam review books. If you drive by a roadside accident, if you are a doctor/nurse/etc then OF COURSE you should be encouraged to help out since you're the one with the knowledge. I mean, this game player did a great thing, but I'm sure an EMS guy driving by would be even better, you know? And Good Samaritan Laws are there to help you do this good deed. You aren't being compensated, and you can't be punished either.
That's a great accomplishment! If only you'd recorded it somehow, because I tried doing something similar a few years ago (but lost track of the game count). I remember the directions said something like "it is theorized that every combination is solvable, but this has not been proven."
Looks like you proved it...
Fewer than 3,000 people have died this entire century on American soil from terrorism
9/11: 2973
Oklahoma City: 168
WTC 1993: 6
I'm just sayin' is all...
Looking for scientific accuracy in Idiocracy? You just answered Mike Judge's question...
My Answer: YOU'RE ALL TOO OLD!!!!
Sorry guys, but I'm a medical student in pediatrics, and I can tell youI see kids everyday, and every boy (and a lot of girls too, let's not discriminate) LOOOOOOVES Star Wars. And guess what? They LOOOOVE Jar Jar too. They get Jar Jar bookbags, folder, binders, etc. Star Wars is cool to them.
And you know what? Being born in 1979, I notice a huge difference between the people who were 5 when ROTJ came out and the people who were 25. The difference? My friends and I love the Ewoks. Kids love the Ewoks. Star Wars is a movie made FOR KIDS! Or... at least, people with the imagination of a kid.
I read some of these complaints, and some are valid (even if I disagree). Don't like Hayden? Fine (I did). Don't like Jar Jar? OK, big deal. But holy moly... you people are complaining about "Landing a Star Cruiser on a landing strip! Lame!"
You people are just way too old (in your mind I guess) to enjoy these movies. Not to say not liking them is illogical or stupid, but most of the complaints here to me are disproven by those points being exactly what kids love about them.
Sword in the Stone is my #1 all-time favorite Disney movie. What exactly are you referring to?
If game companies were smart they would give playable demos to the mags like crazy. Too bad I have yet to see one demo disk for the Wii, it might have prevented me from buying NBA 07, Rapala Fishing and that horrible piece of trash chicken shoot (I thought my 5 & 7 year olds would like it, I was horribly wrong)
Then I guess they're not so dumb for not including demos of crappy games, eh? Oh, and a tip... next time try some of the game reviews online before purchasing a non-AAA game (Rapala fishing got an awful 3.0/10 - VERY unheard of). I like IGN's reviews personally. Not because I agree with them (I often don't), but they rarely give a game 9+ without it being excellent.
100% agreed. About the ONLY thing that doesn't compare to today's games is the sheer graphical power. It matches or exceeds today's games in music (Trent Reznor's soundtrack is awesome), gameplay, level design, weapons (I just love the nail gun), multiplayer and overall fun.
Super Mario Bros isn't anything to look at graphically, but I'm playing The Lost Levels more on my Wii than any of my Wii games...
If you want to know just how amazing these machines are, you *must* read Roving Mars. It is amazing how on several occasions, one person made the difference between utter failure and spectacular success. And often these decisions were against NASA brass, scientist's opinions, and conventional wisdom.
In fact, I have to admit that once the book gets to the point where the Rovers actually land, it gets a little less exciting. The excitement is all in the planning/construction stages, and how it almost didn't work (even though you know it does in the end, it's still exciting). Like, a month before launch, they realize that the parachute doesn't work, or that Opportunity shorted out. Very exciting stuff.
I absolutely love it too. But then again, I love Super Mario Bros 2...
Is there also an air of nerdy excitement about this new-sorta "Space Race II" (new character... Asia!) in the rest of you guys too?
I played World of Warcraft from work on my friend's laptop using the Verizon Wireless PCMCIA card.
I wonder how many people that are mad at "Fuck Islam" are also members or created groups against Facebook networks like fuck Israel & Jewish or fuck all jews and sharon (with a lovely "jew nose" picture and the member "HAHAHAHA ISREALIS CLAIM THEY R RICHER>>>> MY POCKET MONEY CAN BUY 10 JEWISH SLAVE AND MAKE THEM CLEAN MA SHIT")?