What has he done that makes him a 'hacker'? Has he developed any useful software whatsoever? Is there any worthwhile code of his in active use? Has he done anything that suggests that he understands computer science?
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Section 1 of the the 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The First is applicable to state and local actions as well.
I can just see the massive boner poking out of your post. You are, indeed, a true man.
Rand's novels are all just endless jerkfests for people disappointed about all this "equal rights" crap.
The Daodejing doesn't urge its followers to become, ahem, 'pussies'; it urges them to be considerate and careful in their actions.
31. Armies Armies are tools of violence; They cause men to hate and fear. The sage will not join them. His purpose is creation; Their purpose is destruction.
Weapons are tools of violence, Not of the sage; He uses them only when there is no choice, And then calmly, and with tact, For he finds no beauty in them.
Whoever finds beauty in weapons Delights in the slaughter of men; And who delights in slaughter Cannot content himself with peace.
So slaughters must be mourned And conquest celebrated with a funeral.
The near entirety of the Daodejing is devoted to explaining how to change one's condition without forward action or aggression. By no means does it encourage anyone to submit to oppression.
The only correct answer to "Who is John Galt?" is "Someone who needed to get laid a bit more."
You really expect evolution between kingdoms within a human period of observation? The postulate in question is that life evolved to its present state over a period of 4 billion years. Asking someone to present a contemporary example of one kingdom sprouting from another is like asking them to lift the Empire State Building. It's patently impossible.
I kicked you in the nuts. There's a fact. You fell on the ground. There's a fact. From there you can make useful hypotheses such as "when you kick someone in the nuts, they fall to the ground." You can then try to prove that hypothesis, making it a theory. Perhaps some people don't fall to the ground; instead they just howl in pain and hop around. Eventually, you'll come to a reproducible process like "kicking someone in the nuts causes them to react violently." You can then make theories as to the cause of this reaction: "Kicking someone in the nuts causes them physical discomfort and pain." "Kicking someone in the nuts causes invisible gremlins to push them around." Etc.
First, here and here is your information about macroevolution (a misnomer in itself).
Second, there's no such thing as being "between species". An organism is either in a given species or it isn't -- and the change of one species into another can happen instantly, or it can happen gradually. In any case, a change of species is so minor that it isn't easily observed in the fossil record.
You might want to look up "species". I think you have a misconception about what it means.
Yes. In fact, there are many alive today. You're one of them.
All models of macroevolution feature gradual change at some point. There's no such thing as an "evolutionary state", and I'd like to ask you where you learned that there was so I can bludgeon your biology teacher.
Evolution itself has been observed countless times in living organisms. Macroevolution has been observed a number of times in a geologically insignificant period.
No, I'm not. I said "evolution." So did the sticker.
In addition, "monkeys turning into humans" is not evolution. For one, the theory is that humans evolved from apes. Apes aren't monkeys.
Second, the single theory that humans evolved from other primates is not the entirety of macroevolution, much less evolution. Throwing away tons of good science because you don't like the implication of a small portion is bad practice. Instead, try to excise that part in a reasonable fashion.
I've never read a biology textbook that didn't mention that the specific evolutionary paths mentioned therein were theoretical and subject to change. In the meantime, it's the job of the textbook authors to teach the prevailing scientific ideas.
By the way, macroevolution (speciation via evolution) has been observed in a number of cases. Those cases don't prove any other cases, but the process does occur.
Contrary to popular opinion, a law is not a popular theory. It's usually a mechanistic rule regarding a particular phenomenon. Some rules aren't even theories -- they're postulates, sometimes impossible to prove. The issue with the sticker is that it's inaccurate. It says evolution is a theory, which is false -- evolution is an observed phenomenon with a number of theories describing its mechanisms. It contrasts "theory" with "fact" in a scientifically wrong manner -- a theory and a fact are on completely different spectra. Facts are used to formulate and prove theories, but a theory doesn't become a fact when well-proven.
There are theories as to its mechanisms. Note I said "theory", not "hypothesis"; in general, a theory is the best you can do when describing a process in science. The common use of 'theory' to mean 'unproven concept' is not the way science uses it.
Slashdot Mirror
What's actually going to happen is that some of "the OSS people" are going to listen, and some are not.
And yet another split is born.
No. No, it isn't.
Keramik is ugly and nearly unusable, and makes KDE look like a big piece of shit.
I prefer to use applications actually designed for handling email.
Indeed, art fags with goatees make up a growing market.
And fetchmail is well-known for being insecure and unreliable. Better alternatives exist.
What has he done that makes him a 'hacker'? Has he developed any useful software whatsoever? Is there any worthwhile code of his in active use? Has he done anything that suggests that he understands computer science?
And in politics (extreme anarchist libertarian) and foreign policy (militarist). And in his comical anti-Microsoft stance.
Looking at a photo of ESR while reading "Sex Tips for Geeks" is a great way to make your genitive organs refuse to operate -- permanently.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Section 1 of the the 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The First is applicable to state and local actions as well.
You couldn't be more wrong.
"It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the school-house gate." -- Justice Abe Fortas, Tinker v. Des Moines majority opinion.
What hypocrisy?
I wouldn't exactly want a little boy carrying a fire hose, either. What's the point of that aside?
We certainly didn't evolve from modern apes, but all evidence points to one of our distant ancestors being what we would call an ape.
Rand's novels are all just endless jerkfests for people disappointed about all this "equal rights" crap.
The Daodejing doesn't urge its followers to become, ahem, 'pussies'; it urges them to be considerate and careful in their actions.
(Daodejing, Merel's interpolation)
The near entirety of the Daodejing is devoted to explaining how to change one's condition without forward action or aggression. By no means does it encourage anyone to submit to oppression.
The only correct answer to "Who is John Galt?" is "Someone who needed to get laid a bit more."
You really expect evolution between kingdoms within a human period of observation? The postulate in question is that life evolved to its present state over a period of 4 billion years. Asking someone to present a contemporary example of one kingdom sprouting from another is like asking them to lift the Empire State Building. It's patently impossible.
Rand wrote about it.
She also said that homosexuality is "immoral" and "disgusting", so I'm not inclined to give a shit what she thinks.
Agree with above post: mumbo fucking jumbo. I'm a Taoist, but your post is just fucking retarded.
I kicked you in the nuts. There's a fact. You fell on the ground. There's a fact. From there you can make useful hypotheses such as "when you kick someone in the nuts, they fall to the ground." You can then try to prove that hypothesis, making it a theory. Perhaps some people don't fall to the ground; instead they just howl in pain and hop around. Eventually, you'll come to a reproducible process like "kicking someone in the nuts causes them to react violently." You can then make theories as to the cause of this reaction: "Kicking someone in the nuts causes them physical discomfort and pain." "Kicking someone in the nuts causes invisible gremlins to push them around." Etc.
First, here and here is your information about macroevolution (a misnomer in itself).
Second, there's no such thing as being "between species". An organism is either in a given species or it isn't -- and the change of one species into another can happen instantly, or it can happen gradually. In any case, a change of species is so minor that it isn't easily observed in the fossil record.
You might want to look up "species". I think you have a misconception about what it means.
Yes. In fact, there are many alive today. You're one of them.
All models of macroevolution feature gradual change at some point. There's no such thing as an "evolutionary state", and I'd like to ask you where you learned that there was so I can bludgeon your biology teacher.
Evolution itself has been observed countless times in living organisms. Macroevolution has been observed a number of times in a geologically insignificant period.
No, I'm not. I said "evolution." So did the sticker.
In addition, "monkeys turning into humans" is not evolution. For one, the theory is that humans evolved from apes. Apes aren't monkeys.
Second, the single theory that humans evolved from other primates is not the entirety of macroevolution, much less evolution. Throwing away tons of good science because you don't like the implication of a small portion is bad practice. Instead, try to excise that part in a reasonable fashion.
I've never read a biology textbook that didn't mention that the specific evolutionary paths mentioned therein were theoretical and subject to change. In the meantime, it's the job of the textbook authors to teach the prevailing scientific ideas.
By the way, macroevolution (speciation via evolution) has been observed in a number of cases. Those cases don't prove any other cases, but the process does occur.
Contrary to popular opinion, a law is not a popular theory. It's usually a mechanistic rule regarding a particular phenomenon. Some rules aren't even theories -- they're postulates, sometimes impossible to prove.
The issue with the sticker is that it's inaccurate. It says evolution is a theory, which is false -- evolution is an observed phenomenon with a number of theories describing its mechanisms. It contrasts "theory" with "fact" in a scientifically wrong manner -- a theory and a fact are on completely different spectra. Facts are used to formulate and prove theories, but a theory doesn't become a fact when well-proven.
Evolution is a fact. It's been observed.
There are theories as to its mechanisms. Note I said "theory", not "hypothesis"; in general, a theory is the best you can do when describing a process in science. The common use of 'theory' to mean 'unproven concept' is not the way science uses it.
With the Taliban in charge. Ignorant of modern world history, are we?
Kenosis-BT downloaders don't use the central server. Regular BT downloaders do. It's intended for backwards compatibility, I assume.
Um, what the fuck are you talking about?
What does that have to do with the definition of 'kenosis'?