That saying has an important corollary: "A liberal is a conservative who has been laid off". It applies equally well as the first, and taken together they illustrate that both left wing and right allow themselves to be ruled by fear, differing only in what particular things they're afraid of.
Unfortunately the glasses never really took off, partly because there were rendering problems with many popular 3D games but mostly because monitors didn't support high enough refresh rates to display games without giving people crushing headaches.
OK, sure, refresh rates are an issue, but you don't think it was mostly that people don't want to wear special glasses for gaming? We haven't yet aged so much as a demographic that we can say "let me put on my gaming glasses" with a straight face.
1)RTFA. It's not as if the article (or the scientists mentioned in it) are acting as though we just now figured out that metal softens at high temperatures; in fact it specifically mentions the "blacksmiths knew this already!" bit. It's explaining that they're studying the process of how the metal weakens and softens so that they can design that property out of future alloys (a need not obviated by the ones described in your link). So yes, it is telling us things we didn't already know.
2)Why "worry about the walls later"? It's not like we can't study more than one thing at a time, especially when the results will be useful in far more applications than just reactors.
Tell you what, you show me where every single Scientologist, without any exceptions anywhere past or present, plans and commits criminal acts, and that such acts are inextricably linked with belief in Scientology. Because if you don't, then you're full of shit.
This sort of insanity is exactly the reason that "freedom of religion" should not be protected at all
That's a really poor way to summarize what you actually said in that other post you linked, and is almost certainly what got you the Troll mod. "Should not protected at all" is nearly the exact opposite of "Should not be explicitly protected above and beyond other forms of expression and ideology".
there should be no different level for anyone, just because they choose to label something with the ill-defined term "religion".
Something tells me you don't understand the kinds of things their organization has pulled.
If something tells you that, then something lied to you. I was anti-Scientology long before the Internet decided it was cool, so don't presume to lecture me about their history. That doesn't mean it's okay to tack "but not those guys" onto the Constitution.
Not even if the "religious group" is conspiring against the government? Give me a break.
"Scientology" isn't conspiring against anyone, and cannot. Certainly some members of the Church of Scientology are doing that, but said conspiracies, not their membership in the church, are the crimes that should be prosecuted.
Should Al-Qaeda have freedom of assembly in the U.S.?
If we convert your little straw man into an honest analogy by assuming the existence of Al-Qaeda members who, like many Scientologists, are not committing crimes and have no knowledge of nor power to prevent crimes being committed by fellow members of their group? Yes, they certainly should, because the only "bad" thing such people have done is believe some fucked-up shit, which they have every right to do.
But it is a time for the U.S government to... ban the cult.
No, it isn't, and it never will be. Arrest people for unlawful acts where the evidence merits it, sure, but you do not fuck with freedom of religion and freedom of assembly. Not even for Scientologists. Congratulations, you just sunk to their level.
I'd be surprised if they didn't continue to have the life-stealing ability for weapons in D3. A D2 build with enough life-stealing rarely needs potions even in extended boss fights.
From where the rest of the world is standing, the iPod is still leaps and bounds better than a Zune. I have NEVER even seen a Zune out in the real world, but I see iPods every day.
You're implying here that "more popular means better". If that's so, then Windows XP is the best OS, and McDonald's makes the best hamburgers.
Regarding #5: That's really the whole point. The Joker won. The most Batman was able to accomplish was a bit of damage control by trading his own good name for Dent's. All the other capers the Joker pulled- the robberies, the hostage situations, etc - were just tools to accomplish the goal of corrupting the city's biggest heroes.
Yes, straw man. Look it up. You ignored my actual argument and instead chose to attack an argument you invented out of thin air- something that neither was implied by me nor logically flows from anything I said.
I have "walked the world a while", and I know for a fact that the dichotomy you present (accept Jesus or never be happy) has no basis in reality.
each of us have a 'hole in our hearts' that gives us a greed to do (sometimes weird) things to fill it. Things like car racing, drugs, whoring, gambling...and things like wanting to be Batman. And until that 'hole' is filled, you'll run around aimlessly trying to fill it
Sorry, but not everyone who doesn't follow your faith is miserable.
You're wrong. It is your nations authoritarian regime that will fall.
We've been hearing that since we started. For over two hundred years our Inevitable Collapse has been coming Real Soon Now, Just You Wait. When it eventually does happen, the twerps to most recently predict it will be right by sheer stupid luck, not because they had the slightest idea what the fuck they were talking about.
I don't know how your twisted mind transforms "Democracy, with votes contingent on a demonstrated connection to future generations of society" into "Authoritarian fantasy"
My mind isn't twisted at all, you're just being dense.
Entertaining the notion that people should be denied the right to control their own reproductive functions is absolutely an authoritarian fantasy (particularly the bit where you're killing/raping anyone who doesn't comply with your demands). It's authoritarian because it involves state control over some of the most private affairs possible, and it's a fantasy because face it, you have no realistic hope of it happening. All you'll ever get to do is sit there lying about how reproduction is somehow a requisite for being human. You'll never be content with that, but that's all you'll ever get. I admit that it's a bit petty of me to take some small pleasure in that.
Furthermore, having kids is not a "demonstrated connection to future generations of society", nor is not having kids a demonstrated lack of one. Neither have you even attempted to provide any reason that said connection should be a requisite for the basic human right of having some say in the way you're governed. You're just scrambling to justify your desire to tell everyone how to live, and even the flimsiest addendum will satisfy you.
Most of the rest of your post is your usual unsupported, cliche-ridden garbage about how The Storm Is Coming and us blind lemmings (or is "sheeple" still the fashionable word?) will never see it until it's too late. I can get the same nonsense from a stoned coffee-shop poet or a fire-and-brimstone street preacher, only with slightly better logic and significantly better delivery. But like cold fusion, our doom is always 20 years away.
The only other bit that stands out is this:
Hopefully, things will only be so brutal as they must be, and we will move on with people surviving, being held accountable for their own shit and living and cooperating in relative freedom. That's what I want to see.
That's a lie, and a poorly disguised one at that. Freedom and personal responsibility are certainly not what you want to see. If they were, you wouldn't be aching as you do to punish people for not making the lifestyle choices you personally deem correct. You'd be content to live and let live.
I am very surprised to see that so many slashdotters are supporting the fact that every person should be allowed to wear guns. I always thought that they were sort of intellectual but I was mistaken.
"Intellectual" does not mean "agrees with me".
The logic that more guns bring more safety is completely insane.
The logic that more guns automatically means less safety is equally insane. Both are too simplistic to be valid.
It is very simple
No, it isn't, you just want it to be.
In (most of) Europe citizens are not allowed to bear arms and very few people get shot. That's it. Or if you need another illustration: How often do children get shot at school in Europe? More guns in circulation just makes more guns available to total idiots and criminals.
Yes, yes. I'm sure the AR-16 (or any weapons for that matter) I have stashed in my basement will deter any US military and/or Police force that comes knocking. I'm sure that will be 30 seconds well spent.
The notion that a civilian force could "overthrow a tyrannical government" in the US today is quaint at best.
No, what's quaint is the notion that the outcome of a large-scale armed conflict can be accurately determined just by comparing firepower. War is complicated, and "who's got the biggest guns?" will not suffice to tell you who's going to win.
I'll shake my head in dis-belief at the liberal nut jobs who will rush down to defend people who would kill their children in a moment if given a chance.
What about people who deliberately mischaracterize arguments they don't agree with?
Slashdot Mirror
That saying has an important corollary: "A liberal is a conservative who has been laid off". It applies equally well as the first, and taken together they illustrate that both left wing and right allow themselves to be ruled by fear, differing only in what particular things they're afraid of.
OK, sure, refresh rates are an issue, but you don't think it was mostly that people don't want to wear special glasses for gaming? We haven't yet aged so much as a demographic that we can say "let me put on my gaming glasses" with a straight face.
1)RTFA. It's not as if the article (or the scientists mentioned in it) are acting as though we just now figured out that metal softens at high temperatures; in fact it specifically mentions the "blacksmiths knew this already!" bit. It's explaining that they're studying the process of how the metal weakens and softens so that they can design that property out of future alloys (a need not obviated by the ones described in your link). So yes, it is telling us things we didn't already know.
2)Why "worry about the walls later"? It's not like we can't study more than one thing at a time, especially when the results will be useful in far more applications than just reactors.
Tell you what, you show me where every single Scientologist, without any exceptions anywhere past or present, plans and commits criminal acts, and that such acts are inextricably linked with belief in Scientology. Because if you don't, then you're full of shit.
That's a really poor way to summarize what you actually said in that other post you linked, and is almost certainly what got you the Troll mod. "Should not protected at all" is nearly the exact opposite of "Should not be explicitly protected above and beyond other forms of expression and ideology".
I wasn't suggesting that there should.
If something tells you that, then something lied to you. I was anti-Scientology long before the Internet decided it was cool, so don't presume to lecture me about their history. That doesn't mean it's okay to tack "but not those guys" onto the Constitution.
"Scientology" isn't conspiring against anyone, and cannot. Certainly some members of the Church of Scientology are doing that, but said conspiracies, not their membership in the church, are the crimes that should be prosecuted.
If we convert your little straw man into an honest analogy by assuming the existence of Al-Qaeda members who, like many Scientologists, are not committing crimes and have no knowledge of nor power to prevent crimes being committed by fellow members of their group? Yes, they certainly should, because the only "bad" thing such people have done is believe some fucked-up shit, which they have every right to do.
Nothing. You can't read.
You assume that because you're a moron.
No, it isn't, and it never will be. Arrest people for unlawful acts where the evidence merits it, sure, but you do not fuck with freedom of religion and freedom of assembly. Not even for Scientologists. Congratulations, you just sunk to their level.
I'd be surprised if they didn't continue to have the life-stealing ability for weapons in D3. A D2 build with enough life-stealing rarely needs potions even in extended boss fights.
You're implying here that "more popular means better". If that's so, then Windows XP is the best OS, and McDonald's makes the best hamburgers.
Or yesterday's, or tomorrow's.
Regarding #5: That's really the whole point. The Joker won. The most Batman was able to accomplish was a bit of damage control by trading his own good name for Dent's. All the other capers the Joker pulled- the robberies, the hostage situations, etc - were just tools to accomplish the goal of corrupting the city's biggest heroes.
Another straw man. I didn't say that, or anything even remotely resembling that. And you know it.
Yes, straw man. Look it up. You ignored my actual argument and instead chose to attack an argument you invented out of thin air- something that neither was implied by me nor logically flows from anything I said.
I have "walked the world a while", and I know for a fact that the dichotomy you present (accept Jesus or never be happy) has no basis in reality.
Your construction of a straw man is an admission that you can't refute what I actually said.
Sorry, but not everyone who doesn't follow your faith is miserable.
Newsflash: You cannot read minds.
There are some things you just shouldn't admit, even on the Internet.
In other news, thumbscrews said to be preferable to the rack.
We've been hearing that since we started. For over two hundred years our Inevitable Collapse has been coming Real Soon Now, Just You Wait. When it eventually does happen, the twerps to most recently predict it will be right by sheer stupid luck, not because they had the slightest idea what the fuck they were talking about.
My mind isn't twisted at all, you're just being dense.
Entertaining the notion that people should be denied the right to control their own reproductive functions is absolutely an authoritarian fantasy (particularly the bit where you're killing/raping anyone who doesn't comply with your demands). It's authoritarian because it involves state control over some of the most private affairs possible, and it's a fantasy because face it, you have no realistic hope of it happening. All you'll ever get to do is sit there lying about how reproduction is somehow a requisite for being human. You'll never be content with that, but that's all you'll ever get. I admit that it's a bit petty of me to take some small pleasure in that.
Furthermore, having kids is not a "demonstrated connection to future generations of society", nor is not having kids a demonstrated lack of one. Neither have you even attempted to provide any reason that said connection should be a requisite for the basic human right of having some say in the way you're governed. You're just scrambling to justify your desire to tell everyone how to live, and even the flimsiest addendum will satisfy you.
Most of the rest of your post is your usual unsupported, cliche-ridden garbage about how The Storm Is Coming and us blind lemmings (or is "sheeple" still the fashionable word?) will never see it until it's too late. I can get the same nonsense from a stoned coffee-shop poet or a fire-and-brimstone street preacher, only with slightly better logic and significantly better delivery. But like cold fusion, our doom is always 20 years away.
The only other bit that stands out is this:
That's a lie, and a poorly disguised one at that. Freedom and personal responsibility are certainly not what you want to see. If they were, you wouldn't be aching as you do to punish people for not making the lifestyle choices you personally deem correct. You'd be content to live and let live.
Your sad little authoritarian fantasies will never, ever be realized. And the petulant impotence of your posts shows that you know it.
"Intellectual" does not mean "agrees with me".
The logic that more guns automatically means less safety is equally insane. Both are too simplistic to be valid.
No, it isn't, you just want it to be.
Switzerland.