Well, what exactly is the difference? You care emotionally for her, desire to make her happy, and not incidentally want to fuck her and yes maybe want to raise children with her that may or may not be 50% based on your sperm.
All the above may be true for Mr. G.P and Chuck. So where is the essential difference? Unless I'm missing something else here, its the whole disgusting gay sex thingy.. but you don't have a problem with that.
This leaves me confused. (Oh and yes btw it is my usual conversational style)
So, you are also against marriage of people past childbearing age? What about infertile couples. Shall we ensure that they cannot marry? If I get a vasectomy is it the same as a divorce? Does a marriage licensce require a note on reproductive health from your doctor and a guarantee that you won't choose to remain childless?
Oh, and you might be surprised to learn that procreation is actually possible without marriage (I learned that one the hard way.)
So it does basically come down to not wanting to extend rights to faggots. For anyone that says why should they call it marriage, it doesn't matter as long as they have the same legal rights as a married couple, well, you can't have it both ways. Either the semantics does make a difference or it doesn't. If it doesn't then why make such a big deal about it yourself?
Yes, it is a rather confusing analogy. The way to look at it is that the sheet is space itself. Draw lines on it, and each of these is a straight line. Now when you place the object in it and it curves the sheet, notice that the 'straight' lines are now curved by it. This is analogous to the mass warping space. The lines are now curved, and the 'straight' path of an object on this curved space is now going to curve as well.
Actually Onan's sin wasn't coming on the floor. It was trying to have his cake and eat it too.
He didn't get guilty, he got greedy. Societal rules dictated that he should sire an heir for his father which would legally not be considered his son, but his brothers. This would mean that he and his recognized children would not be the heirs.
His sin was in not only not wanting this to happen, but still wanting to screw his sister-in-law anyway, under pretense of brotherly duty.
If it wasn't for all the government regulation, this never would have happened.
Well, from some of the articles posted:
- 'FirstEnergy's failure to take steps to restore its system to a stable operating condition within a half-hour of one of the major power line outages violated voluntary industry guidelines issued to keep the grid operating safely, the report said. FirstEnergy also failed to provide adequate warning of the impending emergency and provided inadequate training to its operators.
Utilities do not now face penalties for guideline violations, although the energy bill now before Congress would make the guidelines mandatory and impose financial penalties for violations.'
Sounds more like a failure of capitalistic free enterprise to me.
The interesting thing to note is how everyone seems to assume that they are in that 40% (or 15% or whatever) that is capable of making an informed decision.
How that percentage is figured I am a little vague on, but I suspect it is based on the number of voters who voted the same as you.
This is perhaps a corollary of those who believe that most people won't get into heaven, but that they certainly will.
Will they, being generally muslim, with their religious teachings telling them all other faiths are infidels to be killed with no remorse for having done so? Donbesilly. Their 'Allah' commands them to be stone aged killers of any who oppose them.
I take it you are referencing the belief in teachings from the Koran such as:
'And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.'
'But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.'
'If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth; Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die.'
Oh, wait those are from the Bible. Sorry, my bad.
And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?
Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.
Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
Well I guess the point is that its not so much if you 'kill without remorse for people of other faiths', as much as it is knowing the right 'God' to kill for.
First off, metadata is not usefull at all if there is no where to store the metadata in the first place.
A large amount of metadata could be assigned by the application. When was it created, what user created it, what application, who sent it to you... and other data would actually be supplied by the users, even ones who might not be very computer savvy. I am willing to bet that you name your files. You type in a subject for emails. Your 9000 mp3's are most likely arranged in some form of directory structure which is you the user classifying your files.
User metadata could be as simple as typing in a subject field for a spreadsheet, or dragging an unclassified text document into the 'Really Important Files For Work' virtual folder.
In fact with virtual folders representing stored queries, it would not be all that different as far as most users are concerned, except that with more of the logic being done for them, they might be surprised to find that their files really are where they look for them.
The main reason it isn't on your desktop is not because it wouldn't have advantages, or could not be implemented with lazy or stupid users. It is that it would require a lot of changes from the ground up.
And why do you want your brothers mail to you to say its from your uncle?
I think the point he was trying to make is that you suggest that science is foolish in attempting to explain the origins of everything when you have the answer. "God did it." But this merely puts the question back a generation. It's like if I ask where do chickens come from and you said eggs. The suggestion that God is The Great Cosmic etc. that Sits Outside is a bit of a cop out.
If there is a God then where did he come from? What was there before him? If the answer is nowhere and nothing then its not really any more ridiculous than extracting him from the equation and saying the same for the universe.
Oh, and at its heart isn't religion entirely about saying how the world is, why it is that way and where it came from? Only after you have answered those questions with "god(s)" can you start asking "What does God want from me?"
Re:you have a shallow understanding of the issues
on
The Future of Money
·
· Score: 1
First you have to understand that most of the money doesn't have to be printed. It doesn't exist in any real sense.
We tend to assume that because we have $5000 in the bank that somewhere there is $5000 in 20's stacked away somewhere. There isn't. Only a very small percentage (too lazy to search for accurate figures right now) exists as tangible money.
So in answer to 1) How does new money make it into the market? Money is created when someone borrows money. Debt creates money. Make sense? Bear with me. If you have $5000 in the bank the bank can lend out a certain amount. They only set aside a percentage of the money they actually have, the rest is loaned out. So you have $5000, I borrow $2000, a some others borrows $1000. Pretty soon $50000 exists for that $5000. And some of that gets deposited and more is loaned out. New money is born.
But wait, this creates inflation. What to do? No problem, just raise interest rates. People don't borrow for that new car, businesses don't expand, people concentrate on paying off that debt and new money isn't created. In fact the opposite happens.
When you pay off your student loans or your mortgage where does that money go? It just disappears. Poof.
But now businesses aren't expanding, capitol investment is down. Just to keep up with costs they have to cut back. Jobs are lost, the economy starts to slide. Now what? Raise those interst rates back up.
Who makes these decisions, giving our economies a daily dose of fiber to stay regular? The government I hear you say. No.. the banks do. But thats ok, because the banks have our best interest at heart. Oh and OPEC exists to help us with a healthy supply of oil too.
In answere to number 2, how can the gov't print more and how do they distribute it? They don't. That would be bad and cause inflation. So instead they borrow it. The central bank prints it for them. This is good because while it still has the same effect, it means it costs them more and creates debt. And since the only way to pay off this debt is by taxing the people more, no sane government would want to do this.
Re:Wouldn't it be easier to...
on
Lab-Grown Steak
·
· Score: 1
Yes, but some people might object to eating babies.
So I can't believe that it is for example wrong to kill small babies unless I have orders from higher up not to do it?
In other words it is ok to kill babies if your god says "go ahead, I don't mind"? In fact when he encourages it is not only ok, but good to do and evil to not. This does not sound like morality to me, more like "I was just following orders".
Is the only reason you have not gone out today to rape your neighbour the fact that you weren't in the mood? Or are you saying you would do it but you are afraid of being punished, either here or in some afterlife? Neither sounds like morality to me. In fact if you only do good and avoid bad based on fear of punishment you are simply acting in your own best interst, just like a good little rational atheist.
And yes, sex and marriage is usually viewed as a contract for reproduction, thus most religions aversion to the idea of homosexual marriage.
Superman avoids using his X-Ray vision on other men. Its kinda like the way we look straight ahead and never down and to the side while using public urinals.
Not sure I would count an organization which calls itself the Human Rights Alliance which apparently is only concerned with Human rights abuses in Iraq by Iraq, as 'evidence'. That is the only country in the world which the site mentions.
Which is not to say that all the details listed may not be accurate. I just have a disliking for organizations which are clearly sponsering a political viewpoint giving themselves names which imply that they are more than a single issue organ.
And hell they forgot to mention the incubator babies. What about those poor babies?
Just a thought, but he might be referring to the use of terrorism by Jewish groups in Palestine from 1944 to until the establishment of Israel in 1948.
For example the bombing of the King David hotel in Jerusalem in 1946, bombing of the British embassy in Rome, bombings of police stations, railways, oil refinerys, kidnapping and murder of british soldiers by Irgun; the assasinations of Britain's minister of middle east affairs and of the UN mediator in Palastine by the Stern gang.
Please note that these were actions against Britain and the UN, I'm leaving out anything involving attacks on Arabs for fear that you will accuse me of being biased. The fact does remain that terrorism was used to achieve the ends of a Jewish homeland in Palestine, and that many of those involved in what were terrorist actions (and if you disagree that those are terrorist acts please define the term more clearly) went on to form the government of Israel.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, what exactly is the difference? You care emotionally for her, desire to make her happy, and not incidentally want to fuck her and yes maybe want to raise children with her that may or may not be 50% based on your sperm.
All the above may be true for Mr. G.P and Chuck. So where is the essential difference? Unless I'm missing something else here, its the whole disgusting gay sex thingy.. but you don't have a problem with that.
This leaves me confused. (Oh and yes btw it is my usual conversational style)
Oh, and you might be surprised to learn that procreation is actually possible without marriage (I learned that one the hard way.)
So it does basically come down to not wanting to extend rights to faggots. For anyone that says why should they call it marriage, it doesn't matter as long as they have the same legal rights as a married couple, well, you can't have it both ways. Either the semantics does make a difference or it doesn't. If it doesn't then why make such a big deal about it yourself?
Yes, it is a rather confusing analogy. The way to look at it is that the sheet is space itself. Draw lines on it, and each of these is a straight line. Now when you place the object in it and it curves the sheet, notice that the 'straight' lines are now curved by it. This is analogous to the mass warping space. The lines are now curved, and the 'straight' path of an object on this curved space is now going to curve as well.
Now imagine it in 3D.
Actually Onan's sin wasn't coming on the floor. It was trying to have his cake and eat it too.
He didn't get guilty, he got greedy. Societal rules dictated that he should sire an heir for his father which would legally not be considered his son, but his brothers. This would mean that he and his recognized children would not be the heirs.
His sin was in not only not wanting this to happen, but still wanting to screw his sister-in-law anyway, under pretense of brotherly duty.
Well, from some of the articles posted:
- 'FirstEnergy's failure to take steps to restore its system to a stable operating condition within a half-hour of one of the major power line outages violated voluntary industry guidelines issued to keep the grid operating safely, the report said. FirstEnergy also failed to provide adequate warning of the impending emergency and provided inadequate training to its operators.
Utilities do not now face penalties for guideline violations, although the energy bill now before Congress would make the guidelines mandatory and impose financial penalties for violations.'
Sounds more like a failure of capitalistic free enterprise to me.
How that percentage is figured I am a little vague on, but I suspect it is based on the number of voters who voted the same as you.
This is perhaps a corollary of those who believe that most people won't get into heaven, but that they certainly will.
I take it you are referencing the belief in teachings from the Koran such as:
Oh, wait those are from the Bible. Sorry, my bad.
And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?
Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.
Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
Well I guess the point is that its not so much if you 'kill without remorse for people of other faiths', as much as it is knowing the right 'God' to kill for.
Sign me up for the next Children's Crusade.
nice link, try mine. http://nationmaster.com/graph-T/geo_are_tot
Third? What country grew big enough to bump us from number two?
A large amount of metadata could be assigned by the application. When was it created, what user created it, what application, who sent it to you... and other data would actually be supplied by the users, even ones who might not be very computer savvy. I am willing to bet that you name your files. You type in a subject for emails. Your 9000 mp3's are most likely arranged in some form of directory structure which is you the user classifying your files.
User metadata could be as simple as typing in a subject field for a spreadsheet, or dragging an unclassified text document into the 'Really Important Files For Work' virtual folder.
In fact with virtual folders representing stored queries, it would not be all that different as far as most users are concerned, except that with more of the logic being done for them, they might be surprised to find that their files really are where they look for them.
The main reason it isn't on your desktop is not because it wouldn't have advantages, or could not be implemented with lazy or stupid users. It is that it would require a lot of changes from the ground up.
And why do you want your brothers mail to you to say its from your uncle?
You're a VB programmer, aren't you?
I think the point he was trying to make is that you suggest that science is foolish in attempting to explain the origins of everything when you have the answer. "God did it." But this merely puts the question back a generation. It's like if I ask where do chickens come from and you said eggs. The suggestion that God is The Great Cosmic etc. that Sits Outside is a bit of a cop out.
If there is a God then where did he come from? What was there before him? If the answer is nowhere and nothing then its not really any more ridiculous than extracting him from the equation and saying the same for the universe.
Oh, and at its heart isn't religion entirely about saying how the world is, why it is that way and where it came from? Only after you have answered those questions with "god(s)" can you start asking "What does God want from me?"
First you have to understand that most of the money doesn't have to be printed. It doesn't exist in any real sense.
We tend to assume that because we have $5000 in the bank that somewhere there is $5000 in 20's stacked away somewhere. There isn't. Only a very small percentage (too lazy to search for accurate figures right now) exists as tangible money.
So in answer to 1) How does new money make it into the market? Money is created when someone borrows money. Debt creates money. Make sense? Bear with me. If you have $5000 in the bank the bank can lend out a certain amount. They only set aside a percentage of the money they actually have, the rest is loaned out. So you have $5000, I borrow $2000, a some others borrows $1000. Pretty soon $50000 exists for that $5000. And some of that gets deposited and more is loaned out. New money is born.
But wait, this creates inflation. What to do? No problem, just raise interest rates. People don't borrow for that new car, businesses don't expand, people concentrate on paying off that debt and new money isn't created. In fact the opposite happens.
When you pay off your student loans or your mortgage where does that money go? It just disappears. Poof.
But now businesses aren't expanding, capitol investment is down. Just to keep up with costs they have to cut back. Jobs are lost, the economy starts to slide. Now what? Raise those interst rates back up.
Who makes these decisions, giving our economies a daily dose of fiber to stay regular? The government I hear you say. No.. the banks do. But thats ok, because the banks have our best interest at heart. Oh and OPEC exists to help us with a healthy supply of oil too.
In answere to number 2, how can the gov't print more and how do they distribute it? They don't. That would be bad and cause inflation. So instead they borrow it. The central bank prints it for them. This is good because while it still has the same effect, it means it costs them more and creates debt. And since the only way to pay off this debt is by taxing the people more, no sane government would want to do this.
Yes, but some people might object to eating babies.
In other words it is ok to kill babies if your god says "go ahead, I don't mind"? In fact when he encourages it is not only ok, but good to do and evil to not. This does not sound like morality to me, more like "I was just following orders".
Is the only reason you have not gone out today to rape your neighbour the fact that you weren't in the mood? Or are you saying you would do it but you are afraid of being punished, either here or in some afterlife? Neither sounds like morality to me. In fact if you only do good and avoid bad based on fear of punishment you are simply acting in your own best interst, just like a good little rational atheist.
And yes, sex and marriage is usually viewed as a contract for reproduction, thus most religions aversion to the idea of homosexual marriage.
Superman avoids using his X-Ray vision on other men. Its kinda like the way we look straight ahead and never down and to the side while using public urinals.
Sorry, forgot to indicate the *sarcasm*
Not sure I would count an organization which calls itself the Human Rights Alliance which apparently is only concerned with Human rights abuses in Iraq by Iraq, as 'evidence'. That is the only country in the world which the site mentions. Which is not to say that all the details listed may not be accurate. I just have a disliking for organizations which are clearly sponsering a political viewpoint giving themselves names which imply that they are more than a single issue organ. And hell they forgot to mention the incubator babies. What about those poor babies?
Just a thought, but he might be referring to the use of terrorism by Jewish groups in Palestine from 1944 to until the establishment of Israel in 1948.
For example the bombing of the King David hotel in Jerusalem in 1946, bombing of the British embassy in Rome, bombings of police stations, railways, oil refinerys, kidnapping and murder of british soldiers by Irgun; the assasinations of Britain's minister of middle east affairs and of the UN mediator in Palastine by the Stern gang.
Please note that these were actions against Britain and the UN, I'm leaving out anything involving attacks on Arabs for fear that you will accuse me of being biased. The fact does remain that terrorism was used to achieve the ends of a Jewish homeland in Palestine, and that many of those involved in what were terrorist actions (and if you disagree that those are terrorist acts please define the term more clearly) went on to form the government of Israel.