On a purely practical point, you also cover up the object you're addressing. Unless you have transparent fingers, you can't see all the detail of whatever's underneath. A basic and unresolvable design flaw.
I wish you would stop regularly alternating between decently insightful posts and off-topic tediopedantic flamebait so I could decide whether to leave you on my Friends list or not.:P
And if any of those million Star Trek reference books contained 91% transcripts from the show and 9% inaccurate commentary, you don't think Paramount should have a problem with it?
And that's not even a valid analogy. A valid analogy for Star Trek would be a video lexicon, 91% of whose content is clips of the show. You don't think Paramount or any of Star Trek's horrible writers should have a problem with someone selling that?
Anyway, it doesn't matter, you probably don't believe in copyright at all, and so reasoning with you is pointless. (Perhaps that's incorrect, but a mischaracterization of you is necessary for my post to take the same tone as yours.)
The reason we can so easily tell the difference between CGI creatures and real creatures is not the photorealism of it, but the animation. Evaluate a screen cap of Lord of the Rings with Gollum in it, and then evaluate that entire scene in motion. The screen cap will look astonishingly realistic compared to the video.
Computers are catching up to the computational challenges of rendering scenes, but humans haven't quite yet figured out how to program every muscle movement living creatures make. Attempts for complete realism in 3D animation still fall somewhere in the Uncanny Valley.
Well, you may be right. No, check that, you are right, but I reckon the probability was pretty close to 1 that this conversation would've started regardless. I just thought I'd start with something I felt was a little more constructive than the usual baloney in these threads.
And indeed, a couple of comments above at least veer toward civil discussion. I don't know if that's typical in these threads.
I have a feeling a creation vs. evolution flamewar is about to start. Creationists will be creationists, but everyone else just think for a second:
If you were an average joe, not even a stupid joe but an average joe, which honestly sounds more convincing: 1) A supreme being did it, or 2) blah blah amino acids blah blah meteorites blah blah neutron star light rays blah blah?
So y'know, take it easy on the creationists. They may not understand how science works, but when faced with an article like this, can you really blame them?
they had two things that nobody else did. The first was speed.
Yeah, I'm sure a speed difference measured in tenths of seconds was a real big factor back when 80% of the market used dial-up.
At any rate, I think your post's parent didn't make himself clear. He was saying there was no quality of search results before Google showed up; he wasn't contradicting his parent post, he was embellishing it. Therefore, you don't actually disagree with him.
Read his parent post, genius. He was getting down on the level of his parent post who made the ridiculous statement that no number of voters could have gotten Ron Paul elected.
Kinda hard to take that out of context, don't you think?
Who needs to take it out of context when you can just imply that it means something it doesn't say?
The NT talks all the time about people being "worthy" of death or punishment or judgment or eternal damnation or whatever, but somehow it manages to not suggest that a person implementing those things on another is a good idea. So no, not even "technically" is execution a "Biblically justifiable punishment" for men to use on homosexuals, and a comparison between that passage and the passages of the Qur'an in this thread is unsound.
At any rate, I don't mean to harp on, because your main point is probably correct. I'd like to think things wouldn't be quite so bad if all the Qur'ans were Bibles, but I am aware of Christianity's history; I guess Islam is just a couple or three centuries behind.
I don't assume that all people with dark skin are part of the same culture. I also don't assume that all people called "black" are part of the same culture, either, and neither do most other people.
The term I use is "black people who are descended from slaves." Or maybe "African-Americans who are descended from slaves." Attaching a single word to that meaning is an interesting idea, but unless there's a word I've never heard of, there's not such a word in common usage right now.
If you want to campaign for the definitions you mentioned, then go for it, and good luck. But your statement that those definitions are common parlance in the USA is incorrect.
"black" refers to the subset of Americans who descended from slaves and share cultural roots. American citizens who have African ancestry but do not come from this slavery-originated black culture are properly referred to as "African-American."
Duhhmm, maybe to some OCD ethnosociologist nomenclature fetishists that's the case, but I'm reasonably confident that no human being I've ever talked to in my time on the Earth makes that distinction.
Of course, I have spent most of my life in Arkansas. But the fact a post on Slashdot is the first I've ever heard of those definitions in my entire life doesn't give me confidence that they're particularly widespread.
a Ron Paul America that doesn't even permit public education, and I'd also expect no public hospitals.
Ron Paul's America wouldn't prohibit either of those, it would just prohibit the Federal government from taking people's money to fund them. States or cities could do whatever they wanted.
The two bills you cited do not put religious acts above the law; they merely give the states their constitutional authority over such issues and get the federal government out of states' and people's business. If a state made something legal or illegal, that's their right, and Ron Paul would support that.
He voted against the stem-cell funding NOT just because he's pro-life, but because he votes against any unconstitutional federal government spending. I'm sure you've heard all those times he was the sole vote against giving people posthumous medals of honor; he did so not because he opposed those people or what they did, but because he didn't believe in stealing money from taxpayers to pay for the medals. If he was voting for a lot of other spending but still voted against the stem-cell funding, you'd have some kind of point.
Ron Paul is not my messiah, and I'm not voting for him. He is something of an ideologue, and I think on many issues he has no viable plan of action for if he were to become President. But just as he has a lot of nutjob idiot fanboys, he has a lot of frothing-at-the-mouth drivel-spewing detractors who twist his words and ideas into something a lot scarier than they are. For although his brand of libertarianism would give churches and religious people more freedom, it would give NON-religious people those same freedoms. It would allow people to use drugs for religious or non-religious purposes; it would allow religious and non-religious people to call themselves "married" to whomever they choose; it would allow everyone to choose whether or not their money would be used to fund stem-cell research; the list goes on.
Anyway. Feel free to waste your time writing another of your usual sensationalistic diatribes in response. I prefer substantive dialogue, but I understand that Slashdot is your outlet.
Oh yeah, that's from his article about the war on Christmas, which in a way I think is pretty silly, since I personally don't celebrate or agree with religious holidays.
But in the end his argument is not that the federal government should do any overtly Christian stuff, but that state and local governments should be able to decide for themselves what happens under their jurisdictions. Here's the quote:
I think we should read the First Amendment, where it says, "Congress shall write no law." And we should write a lot less laws regarding this matter. It shouldn't be a matter of the president or the Congress. It should be local people, local officials-we just don't need more laws determining religious things or prayer in school. We should allow people at the local level. That's what the Constitution tells us...
It boils down to whether "separation of church and state" refers to only the federal government or to state and local governments as well (along with whether it means "congress shall make no law" or "government shall make no mention"). As far as I'm concerned it originally meant the former (in both cases), and when Ron Paul says the idea of a rigid separation isn't there, he's overtly referring to the way it's always interpreted these days to mean the latter (in both cases).
So no, I don't believe he's flatly "opposed to the separation of church and state", he's just opposed to the 21st-century definition of that term, which is arguably way broader than the 18th-century definition.
I've been around since, oh, I dunno, 2002 or 2003, and I don't think I've once witnessed a real vi/emacs flamewar. I've witnessed about a million jokes about the vi vs. emacs holy war, along with quite a few snarky comments one way or the other, but never an actual argument, as far as I can remember.
Maybe I'm just not paying enough attention. But I am paying enough attention to witness the bi- or triweekly creation/evolution smackdowns, and it's getting old, and I think they're the direct intent of the folks posting those articles in the first place.
Gee, if you have to give it such a disparaging department name, then why even bother posting the article in the first place? Unless you have a fetish for the creation/evolution wars, which we all know is the best thing about Slashdot....
Slashdot Mirror
Completely unresolvable, obviously, since no one ever invented a device that will show a thumbnail of what's under your finger above or to the side of it.
I wish you would stop regularly alternating between decently insightful posts and off-topic tediopedantic flamebait so I could decide whether to leave you on my Friends list or not. :P
And if any of those million Star Trek reference books contained 91% transcripts from the show and 9% inaccurate commentary, you don't think Paramount should have a problem with it?
And that's not even a valid analogy. A valid analogy for Star Trek would be a video lexicon, 91% of whose content is clips of the show. You don't think Paramount or any of Star Trek's horrible writers should have a problem with someone selling that?
Anyway, it doesn't matter, you probably don't believe in copyright at all, and so reasoning with you is pointless. (Perhaps that's incorrect, but a mischaracterization of you is necessary for my post to take the same tone as yours.)
Parent +1 Insightful.
The reason we can so easily tell the difference between CGI creatures and real creatures is not the photorealism of it, but the animation. Evaluate a screen cap of Lord of the Rings with Gollum in it, and then evaluate that entire scene in motion. The screen cap will look astonishingly realistic compared to the video.
Computers are catching up to the computational challenges of rendering scenes, but humans haven't quite yet figured out how to program every muscle movement living creatures make. Attempts for complete realism in 3D animation still fall somewhere in the Uncanny Valley.
Well, you may be right. No, check that, you are right, but I reckon the probability was pretty close to 1 that this conversation would've started regardless. I just thought I'd start with something I felt was a little more constructive than the usual baloney in these threads.
And indeed, a couple of comments above at least veer toward civil discussion. I don't know if that's typical in these threads.
I have a feeling a creation vs. evolution flamewar is about to start. Creationists will be creationists, but everyone else just think for a second:
If you were an average joe, not even a stupid joe but an average joe, which honestly sounds more convincing: 1) A supreme being did it, or 2) blah blah amino acids blah blah meteorites blah blah neutron star light rays blah blah?
So y'know, take it easy on the creationists. They may not understand how science works, but when faced with an article like this, can you really blame them?
Yeah, I'm sure those AIDS riots would be really effective.
Yeah, I'm sure a speed difference measured in tenths of seconds was a real big factor back when 80% of the market used dial-up.
At any rate, I think your post's parent didn't make himself clear. He was saying there was no quality of search results before Google showed up; he wasn't contradicting his parent post, he was embellishing it. Therefore, you don't actually disagree with him.
Oh. So she used to be a Muslim who's not a Muslim, but now she's just not a Muslim.
:)
I apologize; her former self is the one who should have received my snark, rather than you.
Read his parent post, genius. He was getting down on the level of his parent post who made the ridiculous statement that no number of voters could have gotten Ron Paul elected.
Who needs to take it out of context when you can just imply that it means something it doesn't say?
The NT talks all the time about people being "worthy" of death or punishment or judgment or eternal damnation or whatever, but somehow it manages to not suggest that a person implementing those things on another is a good idea. So no, not even "technically" is execution a "Biblically justifiable punishment" for men to use on homosexuals, and a comparison between that passage and the passages of the Qur'an in this thread is unsound.
At any rate, I don't mean to harp on, because your main point is probably correct. I'd like to think things wouldn't be quite so bad if all the Qur'ans were Bibles, but I am aware of Christianity's history; I guess Islam is just a couple or three centuries behind.
From you:
From her:
So is everyone who speaks Arabic "Muslim ... to a point" to you?
At any rate, that is a pretty good video.
Thus you have rendered all "reasonable" people unable to take anything you say seriously.
Dude, if that's true it needs to be like +12 Informative.
You have a source on that?
Ehhh, GGP said something about color shifting between blue and yellow. I think GP is right, GGP wasn't referring to the original Game Boy.
I don't assume that all people with dark skin are part of the same culture. I also don't assume that all people called "black" are part of the same culture, either, and neither do most other people.
The term I use is "black people who are descended from slaves." Or maybe "African-Americans who are descended from slaves." Attaching a single word to that meaning is an interesting idea, but unless there's a word I've never heard of, there's not such a word in common usage right now.
If you want to campaign for the definitions you mentioned, then go for it, and good luck. But your statement that those definitions are common parlance in the USA is incorrect.
P.S. --- Wikipedia doesn't seem to agree with you either, for whatever that's worth.
Duhhmm, maybe to some OCD ethnosociologist nomenclature fetishists that's the case, but I'm reasonably confident that no human being I've ever talked to in my time on the Earth makes that distinction.
Of course, I have spent most of my life in Arkansas. But the fact a post on Slashdot is the first I've ever heard of those definitions in my entire life doesn't give me confidence that they're particularly widespread.
Ron Paul's America wouldn't prohibit either of those, it would just prohibit the Federal government from taking people's money to fund them. States or cities could do whatever they wanted.
The two bills you cited do not put religious acts above the law; they merely give the states their constitutional authority over such issues and get the federal government out of states' and people's business. If a state made something legal or illegal, that's their right, and Ron Paul would support that.
He voted against the stem-cell funding NOT just because he's pro-life, but because he votes against any unconstitutional federal government spending. I'm sure you've heard all those times he was the sole vote against giving people posthumous medals of honor; he did so not because he opposed those people or what they did, but because he didn't believe in stealing money from taxpayers to pay for the medals. If he was voting for a lot of other spending but still voted against the stem-cell funding, you'd have some kind of point.
Ron Paul is not my messiah, and I'm not voting for him. He is something of an ideologue, and I think on many issues he has no viable plan of action for if he were to become President. But just as he has a lot of nutjob idiot fanboys, he has a lot of frothing-at-the-mouth drivel-spewing detractors who twist his words and ideas into something a lot scarier than they are. For although his brand of libertarianism would give churches and religious people more freedom, it would give NON-religious people those same freedoms. It would allow people to use drugs for religious or non-religious purposes; it would allow religious and non-religious people to call themselves "married" to whomever they choose; it would allow everyone to choose whether or not their money would be used to fund stem-cell research; the list goes on.
Anyway. Feel free to waste your time writing another of your usual sensationalistic diatribes in response. I prefer substantive dialogue, but I understand that Slashdot is your outlet.
Oh yeah, that's from his article about the war on Christmas, which in a way I think is pretty silly, since I personally don't celebrate or agree with religious holidays.
But in the end his argument is not that the federal government should do any overtly Christian stuff, but that state and local governments should be able to decide for themselves what happens under their jurisdictions. Here's the quote:
It boils down to whether "separation of church and state" refers to only the federal government or to state and local governments as well (along with whether it means "congress shall make no law" or "government shall make no mention"). As far as I'm concerned it originally meant the former (in both cases), and when Ron Paul says the idea of a rigid separation isn't there, he's overtly referring to the way it's always interpreted these days to mean the latter (in both cases).
So no, I don't believe he's flatly "opposed to the separation of church and state", he's just opposed to the 21st-century definition of that term, which is arguably way broader than the 18th-century definition.
If they actually indicate he's opposed to the separation of church and state, sure I will.
Please provide, with sources, quotations of Ron Paul opposing the separation of church and state.
I've been around since, oh, I dunno, 2002 or 2003, and I don't think I've once witnessed a real vi/emacs flamewar. I've witnessed about a million jokes about the vi vs. emacs holy war, along with quite a few snarky comments one way or the other, but never an actual argument, as far as I can remember.
Maybe I'm just not paying enough attention. But I am paying enough attention to witness the bi- or triweekly creation/evolution smackdowns, and it's getting old, and I think they're the direct intent of the folks posting those articles in the first place.
Gee, if you have to give it such a disparaging department name, then why even bother posting the article in the first place? Unless you have a fetish for the creation/evolution wars, which we all know is the best thing about Slashdot....
Duhhhhmmmm, I'm a Christian and I believe in the soul and everything, but I'm fairly certain all those things reside in the brain.
Try harder, dude. Or better yet, don't try so hard.