The biggest differences between Kerry and Bush is that BUsh has morals and actually abides by them instead of advertising his religion and then going the other way. With Kerry in office the murder of babies who are alive in a mother's womb would stay legal and homosexual activity would be endorsed by the gov't as an accepted (by the gov't only, not by society as a whole) lifestyle. Kerry would run away from Iraq and the war on terror just like Clinton simply dropped a bomb on the Sudanese aspirin factory to act like he was doing something useful about terrorism. Bush does his best to keep the nation's moral level at an acceptable leve, Kerry would just let it go down hill even further than it already is because Democrats try to cater to the minorities whether they actually should or not. Except on terrorism and morals, the rest of the issues could possibly be similar between Bush and Kerry.
I know nothing about building. If I needed an extension built, or a wall knocked through, or whatever, I'd go to a builder. Am I dumb now?
At least if a contractor asked you what you wanted you could say a "bathroom" or a "living room" instead of what some people say when you ask them what kind of computer they have and they say "white". What kind of addition on your house would you like? I doubt you would answer with just "a big one".
IT people don't ask for that much usually, just a little common sense and knowledge about the $500-$2000 piece of technical machinery that the user purchases with their own money.
The speed of sound in a vaccum is 0 as sound will not travel without a medium. Thus as you go further up into the atmosphere the speed of sound decreases and thus it is easier to hit Mach 10 because it is a lower value.
If they did do what you said and allowed stores to sell as soon as they got it, that would artificially limit supply on the first days, allowing lucky retailers to gouge people that were willing to buy it, and hurting the sales of unlucky stores whose shipment arrived a day latter.
Is it really gouging though if the people are willing? It would be different if the customers didn't have a choice (change stores or wait longer) but they do so it is their own fault for paying more and therefore I think that would be out of the realm of gouging.
If we took the money that the physicists receive and gave it to the physicians then they could do the medicine, and actually since they already get money to do medicne, giving them more money would mean MORE physicians to perform medical research.
I know I'll be taunted and modded down by the bible bashing extreme right wingers...
Get a grip on reality why don't you? Hardly any of the people who are religious are extreme right wingers so quit labeling them as such. Just because you may have no religion doesn't mean anyone else who does is an extremist. If you are going to call them that then you are obviously an extremist as well, just on the other end, but I guess that is okay though right? You have to keep that double standard up, and the name calling.
They don't bash the Bible either unlike some other people who will go unnamed.
The truth of the matter is that we don't have nearly as many religious fundamentalists as you guys have: I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who believed one of our politicians was ordained by god to bring freedom to the rest of the world.
I'm not sure where you are receiving your information but the "religious fundamentalists" you speak of are members of the Christian faith, about 50 million of them being Catholic, who have been here since about 1620 or so. And I don't know anyone who believes in particular politician is in office because God ordained him/her to be in office.
Just because you don't like bondage and S&M doesn't mean that your opinion should be forced on others. Your protest should begin and end with you refusing to view said site and making no payments. Otherwise... well... opinions are like assholes, everybody has one.
Just because you like bondage and S&M doesn't mean your opinion should be forced on others. Your protest should begin and end with you refusing to view a particular site and making no payments because it lacks what you prefer. Otherwise...well...your opinion is like your asshole: it stinks.
People are sheep, they will protest whatever a stronger, more influental person tells them too. Hence religion.
People are sheep, they will continue to be more and more liberal and follow whatever the liberal side of the gov't tells them just because they like it that way despite what the majority of the populace believes. Hence the moral decay of the country. This aspect isn't necessiarly connected to religion. It's about societal standards and morals.
Morality is a highly subjective topic. I'm sure there are people out there that find women with more than 2^2 inches of exposed skin a threat to society. I'm also sure there are people out there that find all clothing a threat to society. How about we let/. post whatever the hell the editors want, and as mature, responsible adults we decide for ourselves what to look at instead of relying on a higher censoring authority to make that decision for us. The internet is not a babysitter.
Morality is a highly subjective topic only because some people prefer to make it that way so that they can get their way to allow anything and everything. Morality doesn't have to be subjective but the liberals prefer to make it so. If we went by an absolute set of laws (and a set does exist however the liberals disregard them) there would be no objection, no arguments. Humans by nature want to make the world a grey situation but it could be very easily black and white if we wnated it to be. I'm sure there are people out there that find women with more than 2^2 inches of clothed skin a threat to society (they prefer an anything goes society and if you don't like it then don't look). I'm sure there are a lot of people out there that find all nakedness a threat to society. How about we let/. post whatever the hell the editors want, and as mature, responsible adults we decide for ourselves what to look at instead of relying on higher noncensoring authority to make that decision for us? Because despite what you may think, just because you look away doesn't mean it isn't there. If we viewed television that way (and hmm, what do you know, that's exactly how people like you view TV) then parents could change channels or turn the tv off but that doesn't stop their children from watchng it at some point in their lives and seeing what is being broadcasted. Turning the other cheek and ignoring the problem and letting it get worse is NOT the answer. That's what the liberals would like the conservatives to do.
Teenagers get Endorsement from TV to have sex, and to do it in as many forms as possible; porn movies don't help either. They also get endorsement by having schools hand out condoms.
In the last ComputerWorld an Oracle Rep. has stated that Oracle will continue to charge people for these multi-core processors. Oracle's stance on the situation is that a core equals a CPU so if you have a 2 processor single core system and move to a dual core 2 processor system you have to get 2 more licenses from Oracle. Nice huh? At least MS has said they won't make people do this.
I bought one of their hard drive based mp3 players and i'm happy with my purchase. It had all the features i wanted (including FM tuner) and it was a reasonable price. It supports Ogg if I ever want to use that, line out, has a nice LCD, uses usb2.0 and it appears as a regular hard drive and i can put anything type of files on it that I want and make it act as a huge thumbdrive. My storage capactiy is 20gigs. OVerall great product so I think this will be great too, for those who want something like this and who dont mind payign the price.
To all that I say "humans are imperfect, they make mistakes, therefore your argument could be completely invalid and science could be completely invalid". Also, religion doesn't exist to explain things about how they are. Obviously you aren't religious yourself or you would know that.
where f is the temperature in space in farenheight and r is the change, divided by e, again, to the d, which is similar to n, but loses its delta value.
It's not just that and you know it. DOn't trivializae it. It's everything combined. Taken as individual parts allows things to fall through the cracks and then all of a sudden we realize that we are allowing all this to eventually be seen by teenagers who grow up thinking everything is about sex. When you see the bigger picture then you realize just what the tit on tv really means. It's a start (just like NYPD Blue) to having nudity on network television. If no one complains why not go for more and see what happens? It's always about limits and if we don't catch it in little pieces it will sneak up on us (see earlier part of paragraph).
Just because I don't believe in having sex glorified on television doesn't mean I'm a religious control freak, as you blindly believe. Sexual freedom (condoms in schools, easy access to porn) has caused moral decay as it gives teenagers excuses to have sex without having to pay for consequences, especally with abortion being legal. They are saying to themselves "Why not have sex? The grownups have taken away any consequence for us."
On the other hand, this is the same FCC that hasn't moved an inch on Sinclair's intended abuse of the airwaves, is working incredibly hard to remove that "obscene" breast (that'd be the same breast most babies see multiple times a day!) from TV, and does other sundry things.
Babies don't see the breast as a sex object. Teenage boys who are watching the Super Bowl do see it that way however and that's who it was targeted at. Seeing it on TV like that ensures guys will view women as sex objects if it is spoon fed to them as such. That is a no win situation for men, women, and society.
Wars are inherently economic at root. A Cheney or a bin Laden or a Bush, a Haliburton or an Enron is always, always in the background with an "interest" in the objective of any conflict.
Incidentally, Haliburton was the only company who sent in a proposal. Had other companies done so then they would have been considered and maybe one of them would have been chosen instead. As it stands, when you are the only company who sends in a proposal what do you think the chances are that the gov't will pick you?
It's $10 billion we could be using for finding intelligent life here on earth. We could spend it on healthcare, education, defense, border patrol, environmental cleanup, R&D for medical reasons. The money can help us learning and fixing things DOWN HERE than learning about what's UP THERE, but that's just my opinion.
Our bodies don't figure out anything. Eventually a mutation of the virus just may come along that happens to be chemically different in a way that allows the chemicals already in our body to defend against it. Just the same way a drug company finds the right chemicals to put into a drug that interact with something that is already in our system to help us feel better. We don't adapt. Things adapt to us whether by chance or by us intervening and forcing a change.
Human evolution may be happening in front of our very eyes!
Or Not! Ever think that a gene protecting from HIV would cause a horrible weakness to cancer? Quit thinking in terms of evolution for once. Just because something changes doesn't mean it's for the best and therefore it doesn't mean it is even remotely due to evolution. Evolution isn't the answer. It's the question that makes you answer with another question like "what the hell are you thinking?" I'm sure you will still be thinking evolution is the key here when the gene that seemingly makes a person immune to HIV just simply goes away and never comes back, right? Evolution is the answer to everything biological from your point of view. It HAS to be what's going on here. Besides, it takes millions of years for changes to occur, at least based on those who defend evolution who say we can't see the effects of it in our lifetimes. You can't have it both ways; either we see it or we don't.
Up until God creates a new virus out of the blue to punish those who "mess around all they want" w/o any regard to values. Why else would a virus just all of a sudden appear out of no where? You think evolution causes this? Think again. Evolution doesn't start back at the drawing board to try again or am I wrong? It keeps going with what it has right? That's the whole point once things get going. Since I don't believe in it I'm guessing and asking all those people who seem to know all about something that is incorrect.
Slashdot Mirror
The biggest differences between Kerry and Bush is that BUsh has morals and actually abides by them instead of advertising his religion and then going the other way. With Kerry in office the murder of babies who are alive in a mother's womb would stay legal and homosexual activity would be endorsed by the gov't as an accepted (by the gov't only, not by society as a whole) lifestyle. Kerry would run away from Iraq and the war on terror just like Clinton simply dropped a bomb on the Sudanese aspirin factory to act like he was doing something useful about terrorism. Bush does his best to keep the nation's moral level at an acceptable leve, Kerry would just let it go down hill even further than it already is because Democrats try to cater to the minorities whether they actually should or not. Except on terrorism and morals, the rest of the issues could possibly be similar between Bush and Kerry.
Incidentally Google recently doubled their # of indexed pages. There is a note about it on their front pae.
A few years ago they couldn't pony up the money to renew their hotmail.com domain. A good samaritan bailed them out of that one.
I know nothing about building. If I needed an extension built, or a wall knocked through, or whatever, I'd go to a builder. Am I dumb now?
At least if a contractor asked you what you wanted you could say a "bathroom" or a "living room" instead of what some people say when you ask them what kind of computer they have and they say "white". What kind of addition on your house would you like? I doubt you would answer with just "a big one".
IT people don't ask for that much usually, just a little common sense and knowledge about the $500-$2000 piece of technical machinery that the user purchases with their own money.
The speed of sound in a vaccum is 0 as sound will not travel without a medium. Thus as you go further up into the atmosphere the speed of sound decreases and thus it is easier to hit Mach 10 because it is a lower value.
If they did do what you said and allowed stores to sell as soon as they got it, that would artificially limit supply on the first days, allowing lucky retailers to gouge people that were willing to buy it, and hurting the sales of unlucky stores whose shipment arrived a day latter.
Is it really gouging though if the people are willing? It would be different if the customers didn't have a choice (change stores or wait longer) but they do so it is their own fault for paying more and therefore I think that would be out of the realm of gouging.
You won't ever see that happen. Most scientists don't even know what the Bible is.
If we took the money that the physicists receive and gave it to the physicians then they could do the medicine, and actually since they already get money to do medicne, giving them more money would mean MORE physicians to perform medical research.
I know I'll be taunted and modded down by the bible bashing extreme right wingers...
Get a grip on reality why don't you? Hardly any of the people who are religious are extreme right wingers so quit labeling them as such. Just because you may have no religion doesn't mean anyone else who does is an extremist. If you are going to call them that then you are obviously an extremist as well, just on the other end, but I guess that is okay though right? You have to keep that double standard up, and the name calling.
They don't bash the Bible either unlike some other people who will go unnamed.
The truth of the matter is that we don't have nearly as many religious fundamentalists as you guys have: I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who believed one of our politicians was ordained by god to bring freedom to the rest of the world.
I'm not sure where you are receiving your information but the "religious fundamentalists" you speak of are members of the Christian faith, about 50 million of them being Catholic, who have been here since about 1620 or so. And I don't know anyone who believes in particular politician is in office because God ordained him/her to be in office.
but had to change the description when other scientists had no referrants as to what he was talking about.
I REALLY hope that was a typo. It looks as bad as a 20 year old in one of my classes at school who spells "interpreted" as "inturpratid".
Just because you don't like bondage and S&M doesn't mean that your opinion should be forced on others. Your protest should begin and end with you refusing to view said site and making no payments. Otherwise... well... opinions are like assholes, everybody has one.
Just because you like bondage and S&M doesn't mean your opinion should be forced on others. Your protest should begin and end with you refusing to view a particular site and making no payments because it lacks what you prefer. Otherwise...well...your opinion is like your asshole: it stinks.
People are sheep, they will protest whatever a stronger, more influental person tells them too. Hence religion.
People are sheep, they will continue to be more and more liberal and follow whatever the liberal side of the gov't tells them just because they like it that way despite what the majority of the populace believes. Hence the moral decay of the country. This aspect isn't necessiarly connected to religion. It's about societal standards and morals.
Morality is a highly subjective topic. I'm sure there are people out there that find women with more than 2^2 inches of exposed skin a threat to society. I'm also sure there are people out there that find all clothing a threat to society. How about we let /. post whatever the hell the editors want, and as mature, responsible adults we decide for ourselves what to look at instead of relying on a higher censoring authority to make that decision for us. The internet is not a babysitter.
Morality is a highly subjective topic only because some people prefer to make it that way so that they can get their way to allow anything and everything. Morality doesn't have to be subjective but the liberals prefer to make it so. If we went by an absolute set of laws (and a set does exist however the liberals disregard them) there would be no objection, no arguments. Humans by nature want to make the world a grey situation but it could be very easily black and white if we wnated it to be. I'm sure there are people out there that find women with more than 2^2 inches of clothed skin a threat to society (they prefer an anything goes society and if you don't like it then don't look). I'm sure there are a lot of people out there that find all nakedness a threat to society. How about we let /. post whatever the hell the editors want, and as mature, responsible adults we decide for ourselves what to look at instead of relying on higher noncensoring authority to make that decision for us? Because despite what you may think, just because you look away doesn't mean it isn't there. If we viewed television that way (and hmm, what do you know, that's exactly how people like you view TV) then parents could change channels or turn the tv off but that doesn't stop their children from watchng it at some point in their lives and seeing what is being broadcasted. Turning the other cheek and ignoring the problem and letting it get worse is NOT the answer. That's what the liberals would like the conservatives to do.
Teenagers get Endorsement from TV to have sex, and to do it in as many forms as possible; porn movies don't help either. They also get endorsement by having schools hand out condoms.
In the last ComputerWorld an Oracle Rep. has stated that Oracle will continue to charge people for these multi-core processors. Oracle's stance on the situation is that a core equals a CPU so if you have a 2 processor single core system and move to a dual core 2 processor system you have to get 2 more licenses from Oracle. Nice huh? At least MS has said they won't make people do this.
I bought one of their hard drive based mp3 players and i'm happy with my purchase. It had all the features i wanted (including FM tuner) and it was a reasonable price. It supports Ogg if I ever want to use that, line out, has a nice LCD, uses usb2.0 and it appears as a regular hard drive and i can put anything type of files on it that I want and make it act as a huge thumbdrive. My storage capactiy is 20gigs. OVerall great product so I think this will be great too, for those who want something like this and who dont mind payign the price.
To all that I say "humans are imperfect, they make mistakes, therefore your argument could be completely invalid and science could be completely invalid". Also, religion doesn't exist to explain things about how they are. Obviously you aren't religious yourself or you would know that.
where f is the temperature in space in farenheight and r is the change, divided by e, again, to the d, which is similar to n, but loses its delta value.
Highly credible source it sounds like.
It's not just that and you know it. DOn't trivializae it. It's everything combined. Taken as individual parts allows things to fall through the cracks and then all of a sudden we realize that we are allowing all this to eventually be seen by teenagers who grow up thinking everything is about sex. When you see the bigger picture then you realize just what the tit on tv really means. It's a start (just like NYPD Blue) to having nudity on network television. If no one complains why not go for more and see what happens? It's always about limits and if we don't catch it in little pieces it will sneak up on us (see earlier part of paragraph).
Just because I don't believe in having sex glorified on television doesn't mean I'm a religious control freak, as you blindly believe. Sexual freedom (condoms in schools, easy access to porn) has caused moral decay as it gives teenagers excuses to have sex without having to pay for consequences, especally with abortion being legal. They are saying to themselves "Why not have sex? The grownups have taken away any consequence for us."
On the other hand, this is the same FCC that hasn't moved an inch on Sinclair's intended abuse of the airwaves, is working incredibly hard to remove that "obscene" breast (that'd be the same breast most babies see multiple times a day!) from TV, and does other sundry things.
Babies don't see the breast as a sex object. Teenage boys who are watching the Super Bowl do see it that way however and that's who it was targeted at. Seeing it on TV like that ensures guys will view women as sex objects if it is spoon fed to them as such. That is a no win situation for men, women, and society.
Wars are inherently economic at root. A Cheney or a bin Laden or a Bush, a Haliburton or an Enron is always, always in the background with an "interest" in the objective of any conflict.
Incidentally, Haliburton was the only company who sent in a proposal. Had other companies done so then they would have been considered and maybe one of them would have been chosen instead. As it stands, when you are the only company who sends in a proposal what do you think the chances are that the gov't will pick you?
It's $10 billion we could be using for finding intelligent life here on earth. We could spend it on healthcare, education, defense, border patrol, environmental cleanup, R&D for medical reasons. The money can help us learning and fixing things DOWN HERE than learning about what's UP THERE, but that's just my opinion.
Our bodies don't figure out anything. Eventually a mutation of the virus just may come along that happens to be chemically different in a way that allows the chemicals already in our body to defend against it. Just the same way a drug company finds the right chemicals to put into a drug that interact with something that is already in our system to help us feel better. We don't adapt. Things adapt to us whether by chance or by us intervening and forcing a change.
Human evolution may be happening in front of our very eyes!
Or Not! Ever think that a gene protecting from HIV would cause a horrible weakness to cancer? Quit thinking in terms of evolution for once. Just because something changes doesn't mean it's for the best and therefore it doesn't mean it is even remotely due to evolution. Evolution isn't the answer. It's the question that makes you answer with another question like "what the hell are you thinking?" I'm sure you will still be thinking evolution is the key here when the gene that seemingly makes a person immune to HIV just simply goes away and never comes back, right? Evolution is the answer to everything biological from your point of view. It HAS to be what's going on here. Besides, it takes millions of years for changes to occur, at least based on those who defend evolution who say we can't see the effects of it in our lifetimes. You can't have it both ways; either we see it or we don't.
Up until God creates a new virus out of the blue to punish those who "mess around all they want" w/o any regard to values. Why else would a virus just all of a sudden appear out of no where? You think evolution causes this? Think again. Evolution doesn't start back at the drawing board to try again or am I wrong? It keeps going with what it has right? That's the whole point once things get going. Since I don't believe in it I'm guessing and asking all those people who seem to know all about something that is incorrect.
Nothing earth shattering..or would that be earth shaking?