Frankly, neither should be trusted. Fraud has been proven on both sides. For example, scientists that disagreed with the UN report on global warming had their names included as if they signed off on it. Scientists have admitted exaggerating the effects of climate change. Scientists have been caught trying to silence critics of their work.
Citations, please. It is impossible to agree or disagree with an opinion. Please provide citations so those reading can see the basis of your opinions to see if they come to the same conclusion.
Yes indeed. Just like hurricanes or tornadoes correcting imbalances between areas of differing temperatures and pressure or earthquakes releasing pent-up tectonic plate movement.
That doesn't mean that I don't put up hurricane shutters or take shelter in my basement when these things happen. I do what I can to mitigate the damage that the self-correction will do to me and mine when and where I can.
Once the correction has come and gone, it's a little late to take any precautions against the havoc it unleashed.
And thank you for sharing this. I had not know about Vesalius before you posted this. Now I have learned something, which means this was a good day. Thank you again for the information.
And this, despite the frosty piss, the trolls and even the gamemaker spam, is why I still read/.
Why do you ask? Are you trying to drum up business for your psychologist friends, trying to make us all think we're paranoid? Isn't this exactly what the government wants, making us all think we're sick in the head for thinking certain thoughts or expressing certain opinions? You're probably a paid shill, working for the international industrial-military cabal. Either that, or you're a liberal know-it-all that is happily walking to his own shearing.
Cthulhu's gunna be pretty mad when he wakes up to find people have tramped through his shrubbery.
You mean then that dead Cthulhu's first words upon waking from a pleasant dream in his house at R'lyeh will be, "Hey! You damned kids get off my lawn!!"
As you no doubt are aware, Christian doctrine states that the murder goes to heaven and the Buddhist goes to hell.
And if that is the case then I would be perfectly happy in hell next to my neighbor. The thought of spending eternity in the presence of a God so blind to genuine love that he would damn Mr. Chen is unsettling to say the least.
let me clarify, since I forgot to add this in - this is a question that I ask those that tell me that you cannot enter Heaven unless you acknowledge Christ as your savior. Nothing else matters - you MUST acknowledge Christ or you cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
Personally, if such is the case, I'd rather spend eternity with my neighbor.
I know a buddhist, a kind old gentleman that lives a few doors down the block. He is always pleasant and kind, cleans the street in front of his building every morning and always has a kind word for everyone. When I am in the city I see him every morning on my way to work and he always remembers my name and says "Hello," even if I have been away for months.
I also know of more than one murderer that has had a jailhouse conversion in the last month of their lives, suddenly finding God right before their execution.
My question is this - which one, the murderer that converts or the buddhist that does not acknowledge Christ as his Lord and Savior, ends up in heaven?
OK, but can we still blame God for hardening Pharaoh's heart? After all, if God hadn't made Ramses such a hard ass, maybe the Israelites would have been let go before the first born had to be killed.
Exodus 11:10 Moses and Aaron performed all these wonders before Pharaoh, but the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he would not let the Israelites go out of his country.
I probably take better care of myself than most and I've always been blessed with good health (thanks for the genes, Mom and Dad!). Very few people that just meet me can guess my actual age, most giving me about ten years (unless they're ALL being very kind...). I know of damn few fifty year old men that are lucky enough to be able to do some of the stuff I do.
Does this mean I could beat my daughters in a foot race? No way. I can't bench press the weight their boyfriends do. I can't swim as fast as I used to or as long as the younger guys can, and I love swimming more than hiking. A good day of horse back riding leaves me sore for a lot longer than it used to. And if we go on a new hiking trail, I am a bit slower than them. Could I do three solid days of hiking like I used to? Well, no, at least not comfortably. There are a lot of areas where I can see I am not what I used to be.
But get me out on the trails my friends and I have been hiking since we were kids and that is where I do really well. I know every twist and turn, every slippery rock, every rotten branch. It would be very hard for anyone to hike these trails like I do.
And that probably brings up another difference about age - I like to go where I know what to expect. I'm not as big on exploring new places as I was when I was in my twenties and thirties. I'd rather go where I know the surroundings. I leave the exploring and blazing new trails up to the kids. That is just not me anymore.
I expect too that there will come a day when I am not up to doing what I can do now. Probably within the next ten years, I'll be looking longingly at the rocker on the front porch when we set out for a hike, but that day is not here yet. I'll enjoy what I can while I can and hopefully gracefully surrender the things of my youth (and middle age) when I must.
That's OK though. I feel no need to make excuses, to compensate, and my goal is to become (hopefully) wizened really old guy - hopefully healthy, too.
I know my limitations and I accept what nature has given me and is leaving me. Unfortunately, when I express that I hear things like," You're NOT old!" or "Don't be so negative!"
Yep. Been there, done that, made a t-shirt.
I actually am enjoying getting older. It's been the subject of a lot of my writing lately, even this that I posted yesterday.
Getting older sucks sometimes, but there are advantages too. You just have to learn how to appreciate them.
I am middle aged, nearing fifty. I (and my friends) can still hike a trail with my kids, keep up with them and show them interesting things, stuff I remember wondering about when I was their age.
My Mom, however, is 77. She cannot hike those same trails at our speed and she has difficulty remembering things. She stays back with the great-grandkids and the octogenarian dog, baking cookies while we hike.
There is a qualitative difference between middle age and old age, but that may not be readily apparent if you have nothing to compare to.
The calls the screams were recorded from were made by neighbors calling 911 to report the altercation. This was not either Martin's or Zimmerman's cell phones.
...the main benefit that the Internet brings to society.
On the whole, I agree with you. Even/. is a benefit - how would I have ever learned about goatse otherwise?
But there are costs, many, many costs, such as on-line bullying, the erosion of our private and public lives, laws like the DMCA and SOPA either becoming the law of the land (or threatening to). There are even more insidious threats, but those are too terrible to speak of...
So yes, I agree there are many benefits to the way the Internet has grown from the ARPANET, but there are costs too. Whether we as a society can pay those costs is still to be determined.
How do you figure? Copyright is life of the author plus seventy years now, right? Since the Torah, Bible and Qur'an are all merely the transcribed Word of God, and God has not been conclusively determined to be dead (all we have is Nietzsche's word on it) I have to believe that all three Good Books are still under copyright and will remain so until seventy years after the End of Time as we know it.
And did the journals ever reach a courtroom with this? This was all simply a threat made to intimidate scientific journals and prevent the paper from being published. Even the issues that did reach the courtroom were procedural arguments over the release of data for review before publication. Those proceedings did not involve the journals, just the scientists working for the government themselves. Essentially, in those proceedings, the Mining Group and the House Committee argued that they had the right to review all data 90 days prior to publication, since the data were obtained by scientists working for government agencies funded with taxpayer dollars.
What I was talking about were the sinister letters sent out to journals that did not even have a thought of publishing such data and warning them that there would be "consequences" if they did. You can read about that here at sciencemag.org
Slashdot Mirror
Frankly, neither should be trusted. Fraud has been proven on both sides. For example, scientists that disagreed with the UN report on global warming had their names included as if they signed off on it. Scientists have admitted exaggerating the effects of climate change. Scientists have been caught trying to silence critics of their work.
Citations, please. It is impossible to agree or disagree with an opinion. Please provide citations so those reading can see the basis of your opinions to see if they come to the same conclusion.
Just a suggestion looking at your signature - shouldn't it be "Two of my imaginary friends were fruitful and multiplied with negative results."
The planet will self-correct when necessary.
Yes indeed. Just like hurricanes or tornadoes correcting imbalances between areas of differing temperatures and pressure or earthquakes releasing pent-up tectonic plate movement.
That doesn't mean that I don't put up hurricane shutters or take shelter in my basement when these things happen. I do what I can to mitigate the damage that the self-correction will do to me and mine when and where I can.
Once the correction has come and gone, it's a little late to take any precautions against the havoc it unleashed.
And thank you for sharing this. I had not know about Vesalius before you posted this. Now I have learned something, which means this was a good day. Thank you again for the information.
And this, despite the frosty piss, the trolls and even the gamemaker spam, is why I still read /.
Why do you ask? Are you trying to drum up business for your psychologist friends, trying to make us all think we're paranoid? Isn't this exactly what the government wants, making us all think we're sick in the head for thinking certain thoughts or expressing certain opinions? You're probably a paid shill, working for the international industrial-military cabal. Either that, or you're a liberal know-it-all that is happily walking to his own shearing.
I'm warning you people - it's a cookbook!
Cthulhu's gunna be pretty mad when he wakes up to find people have tramped through his shrubbery.
You mean then that dead Cthulhu's first words upon waking from a pleasant dream in his house at R'lyeh will be, "Hey! You damned kids get off my lawn!!"
As you no doubt are aware, Christian doctrine states that the murder goes to heaven and the Buddhist goes to hell.
And if that is the case then I would be perfectly happy in hell next to my neighbor. The thought of spending eternity in the presence of a God so blind to genuine love that he would damn Mr. Chen is unsettling to say the least.
let me clarify, since I forgot to add this in - this is a question that I ask those that tell me that you cannot enter Heaven unless you acknowledge Christ as your savior. Nothing else matters - you MUST acknowledge Christ or you cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
Personally, if such is the case, I'd rather spend eternity with my neighbor.
I always have to ask this question...
I know a buddhist, a kind old gentleman that lives a few doors down the block. He is always pleasant and kind, cleans the street in front of his building every morning and always has a kind word for everyone. When I am in the city I see him every morning on my way to work and he always remembers my name and says "Hello," even if I have been away for months.
I also know of more than one murderer that has had a jailhouse conversion in the last month of their lives, suddenly finding God right before their execution.
My question is this - which one, the murderer that converts or the buddhist that does not acknowledge Christ as his Lord and Savior, ends up in heaven?
OK, but can we still blame God for hardening Pharaoh's heart? After all, if God hadn't made Ramses such a hard ass, maybe the Israelites would have been let go before the first born had to be killed.
Exodus 11:10 Moses and Aaron performed all these wonders before Pharaoh, but the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he would not let the Israelites go out of his country.
I probably take better care of myself than most and I've always been blessed with good health (thanks for the genes, Mom and Dad!). Very few people that just meet me can guess my actual age, most giving me about ten years (unless they're ALL being very kind...). I know of damn few fifty year old men that are lucky enough to be able to do some of the stuff I do.
Does this mean I could beat my daughters in a foot race? No way. I can't bench press the weight their boyfriends do. I can't swim as fast as I used to or as long as the younger guys can, and I love swimming more than hiking. A good day of horse back riding leaves me sore for a lot longer than it used to. And if we go on a new hiking trail, I am a bit slower than them. Could I do three solid days of hiking like I used to? Well, no, at least not comfortably. There are a lot of areas where I can see I am not what I used to be.
But get me out on the trails my friends and I have been hiking since we were kids and that is where I do really well. I know every twist and turn, every slippery rock, every rotten branch. It would be very hard for anyone to hike these trails like I do.
And that probably brings up another difference about age - I like to go where I know what to expect. I'm not as big on exploring new places as I was when I was in my twenties and thirties. I'd rather go where I know the surroundings. I leave the exploring and blazing new trails up to the kids. That is just not me anymore.
I expect too that there will come a day when I am not up to doing what I can do now. Probably within the next ten years, I'll be looking longingly at the rocker on the front porch when we set out for a hike, but that day is not here yet. I'll enjoy what I can while I can and hopefully gracefully surrender the things of my youth (and middle age) when I must.
I simply DO NOT see what is so great about aging, the decline of EVERY SINGLE function. I'm supposed to be happy about this?
And your alternative is...?
You just described a night at my house during the holidays to a "T".
I am old.
That's OK though. I feel no need to make excuses, to compensate, and my goal is to become (hopefully) wizened really old guy - hopefully healthy, too.
I know my limitations and I accept what nature has given me and is leaving me. Unfortunately, when I express that I hear things like," You're NOT old!" or "Don't be so negative!"
Yep. Been there, done that, made a t-shirt.
I actually am enjoying getting older. It's been the subject of a lot of my writing lately, even this that I posted yesterday.
Getting older sucks sometimes, but there are advantages too. You just have to learn how to appreciate them.
I am middle aged, nearing fifty. I (and my friends) can still hike a trail with my kids, keep up with them and show them interesting things, stuff I remember wondering about when I was their age.
My Mom, however, is 77. She cannot hike those same trails at our speed and she has difficulty remembering things. She stays back with the great-grandkids and the octogenarian dog, baking cookies while we hike.
There is a qualitative difference between middle age and old age, but that may not be readily apparent if you have nothing to compare to.
...people are largely animalistic/instinctual and dangerous if left to themselves.
In what way does that differ from what religion teaches?
It was for your own good. After all, we all know that Radiation is good for you.
Actually, there is an Amish community in Sarasota. No need to ship them in from out of state.
Wow. You really like repeating yourself, don't you? Are you trying for quantity over quality?
The calls the screams were recorded from were made by neighbors calling 911 to report the altercation. This was not either Martin's or Zimmerman's cell phones.
Hey! That was on my last birthday card. Stop reading my mail - and get off my lawn, you damn kids!
Sorry. Hot chicks trump cold Kiwis any day of the year.
...the main benefit that the Internet brings to society.
On the whole, I agree with you. Even /. is a benefit - how would I have ever learned about goatse otherwise?
But there are costs, many, many costs, such as on-line bullying, the erosion of our private and public lives, laws like the DMCA and SOPA either becoming the law of the land (or threatening to). There are even more insidious threats, but those are too terrible to speak of...
So yes, I agree there are many benefits to the way the Internet has grown from the ARPANET, but there are costs too. Whether we as a society can pay those costs is still to be determined.
How do you figure? Copyright is life of the author plus seventy years now, right? Since the Torah, Bible and Qur'an are all merely the transcribed Word of God, and God has not been conclusively determined to be dead (all we have is Nietzsche's word on it) I have to believe that all three Good Books are still under copyright and will remain so until seventy years after the End of Time as we know it.
And did the journals ever reach a courtroom with this? This was all simply a threat made to intimidate scientific journals and prevent the paper from being published. Even the issues that did reach the courtroom were procedural arguments over the release of data for review before publication. Those proceedings did not involve the journals, just the scientists working for the government themselves. Essentially, in those proceedings, the Mining Group and the House Committee argued that they had the right to review all data 90 days prior to publication, since the data were obtained by scientists working for government agencies funded with taxpayer dollars.
What I was talking about were the sinister letters sent out to journals that did not even have a thought of publishing such data and warning them that there would be "consequences" if they did. You can read about that here at sciencemag.org