I just write the confirmation code onto a small scrap of paper and put that in my wallet. Why print a whole page when the only thing you want is most likely 8-12 alphanumerics long? Ticketless flights have been the norm for over a decade now.
It's funny how even scientists tend to forget about the Australian Aborigines. They actually would have migrated through Indonesia approximately 10,000 years before this painting was made. They have a well documented history of making paintings exactly like the ones shown in this cave.
I'm a programmer, so it's quite possible I could help out with any number of open source projects. I have in the past and I will in the future. Even the stuff I'm currently working on will no doubt become open source once I feel it's ready.
I mainly use Windows, but that's because all the applications I need to run are on Windows. I also run Unbuntu 14.04 on a virtual machine, Raspbian or two Raspberry Pi boxes, and some flavour of Ubuntu on 3 Beaglebone Black boxes. I've used Linux on and off for 20+ years.
I simply don't have enough hours in the day to donate code to every single project that I use but think sucks in one way or another. I'm currently using hundreds of applications across several operating systems, and most could do with some love...but there simply isn't enough love to go around.
I shouldn't have to give up the right to express an opinion about a product, simply because I could pitch in, but have other priorities.
Lazy Town: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... Is that bales of cotton those lazy...people...are sitting on? 2:30 - someone eating watermelon. Fuck it, this shit is totally rascist!
It's such a shame to see the animation they provided for the amazing music that underlies the whole sequence.
There's plenty more and besides if you're willing to open your eyes.
It's also a good way to desensitise or rationalise that those ways are the right ways. If the shows had any modicum of social value, any redeeming features, they might get a pass - but they were just...you know what they were.
I tend to agree with you. I just wish there was a little more substance and less slapstick...hell, even the same amount of slapstick and some substance to boot!
While I enjoyed those older cartoons as a child, now, as an adult I can totally see why they are no longer screening. They were rife with racism, violence, sexism and other crap that I wouldn't wan pumped directly into my child's brain. Children don't have filters, they ape what they see, and you don't really want your children walking around saying things like "Boy, I say boy...".
Even shows like The Flintstones are rife with undertones of wife abuse and domestic violence. I don't recall any specific racism in them, but that might be because every single character was suburban and white.
Road runner was entertaining, and I don't recall any overt racism or sexism, but it is just silly violence for the sake of violence and I think we can do better for our children. I don't oppose the use of violence in cartoons, but there should be more there for them to chew on.
Elmer Fudd is currently on TV playing the character of Kripke in The Big Bang Theory. It's cheap laughs at what is for a very few people is real problem. I prefer to avoid bullying humour or humour that works by undermining another person. It's weak and it hurts people's feelings. You may not know anyone with that speech impediment, but I can assure you there are people out there with it and while some might laugh, others might feel it's personally hurtful.
I'd rather my kids watched something funny, cool and nourishing - like My Little Pony or some of the anime out there. Something that shows choices have consequences and teaches them morals lessons (without being heavy handed). I won't mourn the passing of Saturday morning TV.
Science starts from a position of saying you know nothing and works towards knowledge based on a small set of well thought out principles. Science understands that there are things you know, things you don't know and things you cannot know.
Religion starts from a position of claiming to know everything and works towards eradicating anything that contradicts that position.
Religion is a cult of destruction, science is a cult of creation.
It seems some are claiming they won't consider themselves astronauts if the flight doesn't go above a certain height. Given that they add nothing to the mission other than weight, I say they won't be astronauts no matter how high the flight goes...they are just...ballast.
Minecraft, Lego, Mechano...all branches on the same tree. I don't have children, but if I did I would rather they play Minecraft than CoD Whatever: The Sequelling.
Best of luck to Notch. Hopefully MS are good stewards of the property.
Give them a live boot disk of Ubuntu or whatever Linux you prefer - wipe their hard drive clean and leave it that way. Lock it down and switch off updates. Give them one or more USB keys to save their data (if they have any). You could I suppose give them a locked USB key that is read only. Put your customised desktop stuff on there for them - you know, a home directory, icons, etc. If they ever mess up bad get them to boot from the Live CD with the read-only key in the drive - step them through copying that onto their trashed key. Go from there.
People like this will never learn, best you can do is lock them down to a given distribution and plan for the day they somehow mess it up.
It seems odd for you to start out by saying that everything I say is wrong, but follow up with points that actually agree with and validate my position.
It really doesn't matter if some scientists actually encourage people to mock those of religious beliefs, because that is just their own personal choice and not one that is demanded by science itself. It's orthogonal to science and has no real place in this discussion. If there was a scientific doctrine that required you to mock religious people, that would be different but there isn't any such thing. I have however been to several churches and heard from a great many religious people that they are the one true faith and even others within their wider faith (Christianity) are basically wrong - or worse, as damned as the atheists, because they are worshipping wrong. They will usually try not to make it too pointed, but it is clear that each has believed that only their denomination has the real truth.
I wouldn't marry a Christian woman, but not for any reason other than I prize a person's ability to follow logic and reason, and by definition any person of faith has given up some or all of those two qualities. That, and the likelihood that they would find it their "devoted Christian duty" to "save my soul" and "preach the word of the Lord" to me. I'm simply not willing to take anything on blind faith, certainly not something as important as that at least.
I do know however that many churches and many other faiths urge their followers to not marry outside the congregation. That is an entrenched and dogmatic position of an authority that you are required to respect - you are given no choice in this matter other than to accept dis fellowship or a lowered social standing. Marriages are quite capable of working across faiths, so long as you respect the other person's beliefs. By outright claiming that your own beliefs are the only correct ones, you automatically put yourself into a divisive position. At best, the only thing a person of faith can say is "these are my beliefs". Scientists are willing to admit the things they do not know, it's a primary tenet of science.
I wouldn't mind at all if my children became Christians, if that was the path they wanted to pursue and that was their core belief. I certainly would never try to prevent them from accessing materials about Christianity or attending a church. The same goes for them becoming Hindus, Islamists, Buddhist, Wikkan or any other religion for that matter. I would only seek to teach them compassion for others, and a solid moral foundation for life. Neither of those two things needs religion to be taught or followed and each is compatible with any and all of the world major religions. I would try to steer them away from superstitions and closed-mindedness - and would consider it a win if those were the only things to managed to convey to them.
As for WWII, that wasn't fought in the name of science. No-one stood on a podium and cried out that we must invade Poland to increase our knowledge of physics theory. It was primarily about grabbing greater power and control of resources for the Axis, mixed with a truly horrendous extermination of not only Jews, but the mentally ill, physically disabled, gypsies, minorities, and other disadvantaged types. People were killed to take control of their lands, confiscate their artwork, silverware, and other goods. It has absolutely nothing whatsover to do with science apart from the fact that science was used by both sides to fight the other.
I would never state that science is objectively morally right. In fact, science is frequently put to completely amoral uses. You can't blame the knife for the uses it is put to. The same drug that relieves chronic pain for millions of sufferers also works great for date rape. That's not science dropping it into girl's drinks...it's people.
It's better to die fighting the crowd than to offer either the guests or your pre-pubescent daughters (unmarried girls at the time were generally unmarried because they hadn't had their first period yet) up for gang rape. This tale is morally bankrupt and the only innocents in it are the daughters who were brutally raped.
The angels could have easily intervened. They did nothing even though they instigated the event.
The father did nothing to protect his family, only himself. The mother is equally liable for doing nothing.
I can't see any reason at all why God would have spared Lot. He is as corrupt or more so than the rest of them.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe they saw what we did to Japan in 1945.
That amount of money would have brought some pretty beastly desktop PCs. Any reason they all chose laptops instead of a PC with a large hi res CRT?
I just write the confirmation code onto a small scrap of paper and put that in my wallet. Why print a whole page when the only thing you want is most likely 8-12 alphanumerics long? Ticketless flights have been the norm for over a decade now.
It's funny how even scientists tend to forget about the Australian Aborigines. They actually would have migrated through Indonesia approximately 10,000 years before this painting was made. They have a well documented history of making paintings exactly like the ones shown in this cave.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/201...
Aboriginal hand paintings:
https://www.google.com.au/sear...
I'm a programmer, so it's quite possible I could help out with any number of open source projects. I have in the past and I will in the future. Even the stuff I'm currently working on will no doubt become open source once I feel it's ready.
I mainly use Windows, but that's because all the applications I need to run are on Windows. I also run Unbuntu 14.04 on a virtual machine, Raspbian or two Raspberry Pi boxes, and some flavour of Ubuntu on 3 Beaglebone Black boxes. I've used Linux on and off for 20+ years.
I simply don't have enough hours in the day to donate code to every single project that I use but think sucks in one way or another. I'm currently using hundreds of applications across several operating systems, and most could do with some love...but there simply isn't enough love to go around.
I shouldn't have to give up the right to express an opinion about a product, simply because I could pitch in, but have other priorities.
Your logic is flawed. Alpha animals do not allow lesser animals to feed before they do.
For those who can't see any racism...let's try a few links:
"Don't beat me massa..."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Lazy Town:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Is that bales of cotton those lazy...people...are sitting on?
2:30 - someone eating watermelon.
Fuck it, this shit is totally rascist!
It's such a shame to see the animation they provided for the amazing music that underlies the whole sequence.
There's plenty more and besides if you're willing to open your eyes.
Winston tastes good like a cigarette should.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
TLDR;
It's also a good way to desensitise or rationalise that those ways are the right ways. If the shows had any modicum of social value, any redeeming features, they might get a pass - but they were just...you know what they were.
No, it was not fine to watch them as a child.
I'm currently watching Sword Art Online and Hamatora, perhaps you can point out the racism to me.
To quote The Hound..."Social media is for cunts."
I tend to agree with you. I just wish there was a little more substance and less slapstick...hell, even the same amount of slapstick and some substance to boot!
While I enjoyed those older cartoons as a child, now, as an adult I can totally see why they are no longer screening. They were rife with racism, violence, sexism and other crap that I wouldn't wan pumped directly into my child's brain. Children don't have filters, they ape what they see, and you don't really want your children walking around saying things like "Boy, I say boy...".
Even shows like The Flintstones are rife with undertones of wife abuse and domestic violence. I don't recall any specific racism in them, but that might be because every single character was suburban and white.
Road runner was entertaining, and I don't recall any overt racism or sexism, but it is just silly violence for the sake of violence and I think we can do better for our children. I don't oppose the use of violence in cartoons, but there should be more there for them to chew on.
Elmer Fudd is currently on TV playing the character of Kripke in The Big Bang Theory. It's cheap laughs at what is for a very few people is real problem. I prefer to avoid bullying humour or humour that works by undermining another person. It's weak and it hurts people's feelings. You may not know anyone with that speech impediment, but I can assure you there are people out there with it and while some might laugh, others might feel it's personally hurtful.
I'd rather my kids watched something funny, cool and nourishing - like My Little Pony or some of the anime out there. Something that shows choices have consequences and teaches them morals lessons (without being heavy handed). I won't mourn the passing of Saturday morning TV.
Have you ever met someone who renewed?
Science starts from a position of saying you know nothing and works towards knowledge based on a small set of well thought out principles. Science understands that there are things you know, things you don't know and things you cannot know.
Religion starts from a position of claiming to know everything and works towards eradicating anything that contradicts that position.
Religion is a cult of destruction, science is a cult of creation.
It seems some are claiming they won't consider themselves astronauts if the flight doesn't go above a certain height. Given that they add nothing to the mission other than weight, I say they won't be astronauts no matter how high the flight goes...they are just...ballast.
The weak prey on the weakest.
Eurasia is at war with Oceania. Eurasia has always been at war with Oceania.
Minecraft, Lego, Mechano...all branches on the same tree. I don't have children, but if I did I would rather they play Minecraft than CoD Whatever: The Sequelling.
Best of luck to Notch. Hopefully MS are good stewards of the property.
Give them a live boot disk of Ubuntu or whatever Linux you prefer - wipe their hard drive clean and leave it that way. Lock it down and switch off updates. Give them one or more USB keys to save their data (if they have any). You could I suppose give them a locked USB key that is read only. Put your customised desktop stuff on there for them - you know, a home directory, icons, etc. If they ever mess up bad get them to boot from the Live CD with the read-only key in the drive - step them through copying that onto their trashed key. Go from there.
People like this will never learn, best you can do is lock them down to a given distribution and plan for the day they somehow mess it up.
It seems odd for you to start out by saying that everything I say is wrong, but follow up with points that actually agree with and validate my position.
It really doesn't matter if some scientists actually encourage people to mock those of religious beliefs, because that is just their own personal choice and not one that is demanded by science itself. It's orthogonal to science and has no real place in this discussion. If there was a scientific doctrine that required you to mock religious people, that would be different but there isn't any such thing. I have however been to several churches and heard from a great many religious people that they are the one true faith and even others within their wider faith (Christianity) are basically wrong - or worse, as damned as the atheists, because they are worshipping wrong. They will usually try not to make it too pointed, but it is clear that each has believed that only their denomination has the real truth.
I wouldn't marry a Christian woman, but not for any reason other than I prize a person's ability to follow logic and reason, and by definition any person of faith has given up some or all of those two qualities. That, and the likelihood that they would find it their "devoted Christian duty" to "save my soul" and "preach the word of the Lord" to me. I'm simply not willing to take anything on blind faith, certainly not something as important as that at least.
I do know however that many churches and many other faiths urge their followers to not marry outside the congregation. That is an entrenched and dogmatic position of an authority that you are required to respect - you are given no choice in this matter other than to accept dis fellowship or a lowered social standing. Marriages are quite capable of working across faiths, so long as you respect the other person's beliefs. By outright claiming that your own beliefs are the only correct ones, you automatically put yourself into a divisive position. At best, the only thing a person of faith can say is "these are my beliefs". Scientists are willing to admit the things they do not know, it's a primary tenet of science.
I wouldn't mind at all if my children became Christians, if that was the path they wanted to pursue and that was their core belief. I certainly would never try to prevent them from accessing materials about Christianity or attending a church. The same goes for them becoming Hindus, Islamists, Buddhist, Wikkan or any other religion for that matter. I would only seek to teach them compassion for others, and a solid moral foundation for life. Neither of those two things needs religion to be taught or followed and each is compatible with any and all of the world major religions. I would try to steer them away from superstitions and closed-mindedness - and would consider it a win if those were the only things to managed to convey to them.
As for WWII, that wasn't fought in the name of science. No-one stood on a podium and cried out that we must invade Poland to increase our knowledge of physics theory. It was primarily about grabbing greater power and control of resources for the Axis, mixed with a truly horrendous extermination of not only Jews, but the mentally ill, physically disabled, gypsies, minorities, and other disadvantaged types. People were killed to take control of their lands, confiscate their artwork, silverware, and other goods. It has absolutely nothing whatsover to do with science apart from the fact that science was used by both sides to fight the other.
I would never state that science is objectively morally right. In fact, science is frequently put to completely amoral uses. You can't blame the knife for the uses it is put to. The same drug that relieves chronic pain for millions of sufferers also works great for date rape. That's not science dropping it into girl's drinks...it's people.
It's better to die fighting the crowd than to offer either the guests or your pre-pubescent daughters (unmarried girls at the time were generally unmarried because they hadn't had their first period yet) up for gang rape. This tale is morally bankrupt and the only innocents in it are the daughters who were brutally raped.
The angels could have easily intervened. They did nothing even though they instigated the event.
The father did nothing to protect his family, only himself. The mother is equally liable for doing nothing.
I can't see any reason at all why God would have spared Lot. He is as corrupt or more so than the rest of them.
Thanks SlashDot for removing all the text between the < and > signs.
For the record there were
INSERT NAME OF THE GREAT ADVERSARY HERE
and
INSERT NAME OF SCIENCE DENOMINATION HERE