Tell that to a gay guy who just got his ass kicked by homophobes.
Agreed, but that does also happen when those sorry excuses for a human see that you are gay when you go out, without any Internet involved.
Tell that to a recovered alcoholic or drug addict (FU AA, people can recover - I've seen it!) who got his shit together but can't get a job or make social contacts.
Would you really want idiots as social contacts or employers?
Or tell that to an atheist who is considered not to have an "values" and therefore can't get a job. Yeah, try and prove it - illegal my ass!
Would you really want to work for a company run by religious fundamentalists?
Maybe "HIS" mom is a hot MILF? What's wrong with that?
Re:Yeah but how much is the ink cartridge?
on
Kidney Printer
·
· Score: 1
Weren't the printheads for Epson printers almost as expensive as a new printer, sometimes even more expensive? For Canon, they are available for a halfway reasonable price (or were when I last checked some years ago). I also prefer Canon because they are the company with the least (technical and legal) actions against refilling/remaking.
Hm, let's not confuse my actual view of the world as it is now and my vision of an ideal world. In the latter, people are wise enough to do good just because they understand where sayings like "don't to to others what you don't want to be done to yourself" come from. In my actual world view, I am aware that far too many people don't give a fuck about others and our planet, they mostly just care for what they have and how to make that more.
Attila, I like a good discussion, but I don't think this will lead anywhere further. So, if you don't mind, let's set an EOD here.
Re:Yeah but how much is the ink cartridge?
on
Kidney Printer
·
· Score: 1
No, I'll stick to Canon inkjet printers. Separate printhead and cartridges, in the "better" models even separate tanks for the colors.
Adobe's cash cow isn't Flash-based Video or Interactive Flash Games/Apps. It is non-interactive Flash Ads.
Ah, OK. Thanks to a certain Vladimir Palant (maker of Adblock Plus), I wasn't very much aware of that:)
This converter only converts Flash Animations to HTML5, ActionScript (which is needed for Flash Games and Apps) isn't supported. Flash Video Players also rely on ActionScript.
LOL, their Player isn't able to play a.flv file, which IIRC just contains H.264 video and MP3 audio, just by itself, there must be some scripting done? Ridiculously lame!
Don't you care for your children, grandchildren and so on? Or at least the kids of your relatives and friends, if you have none of our own (yet) like me?
I said it's a good base to start with, not that they should be enforced exactly like written. Except for the parts that restrict families to one man and one woman (and their kids), I don't see so much religiosity here.
I know that my ideal world is unrealistic, humankind is just too busy wasting this planet and killing each other in their greed for wealth and power. Common sense should tell that this way leads to our own extinction.
People use that Adobe stuff to make their sites, because it is so widely spread. Now, if there is an alternative like HTML5, where you can do about the same without having to buy Adobe's expensive stuff, the sales of their Flash creation tools will decrease greatly.
If you want to make a Flash site, you need to buy stuff from Adobe, or at least stuff where Adobe gets license fees. If you want to make a HTML5 site, you can do that without Adobe earning a cent.
It would make Flashplayer obsolete. That would lead to more and more site owners making their sites in HTML5 directly instead of doing it in Flash and then converting it. Which would be a fine thing for me.
This is like MS offering a converter for Windows applications to run on Linux. I'm fine with that, although I don't get what sense Adobe sees in that help to kill off one of their cash cows.
All laws are based on beliefs and there is no way to separate religious beliefs from other beliefs. What one considers to be "common sense". derives from one's world view. One's world view is a product of one's religion. Facts do not provide any direct basis for passing laws. It is not until those facts are passed through a value system that one has something that is the basis for laws.
You don't need to be religious to have a world view. Mine for example is based on how I experienced the world, and that does not include any proof nor sufficient evidence for the existence of any god or higher power.
For the common sense, I mean it like this: no one wants to be killed himself, so killing someone should be illegal, with very little exceptions (like when killing an attacker in direct self-defense is the only way to defend your own life). For those needing some help with it, the 30 articles of the https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikisource/en/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights are a good base to start with, as this declaration has been accepted worldwide in 1948, although even today you can hardly find any country not violating more or less of them.
In my ideal world, humankind has become wise enough to live together in peace and harmony without a need for laws telling them how to do that. Yes, I know that my lifespan is much too short to have a chance to experience that myself. As I'm afraid that we will have extincted our human race long before having reached such enlightenment, that is probably a good thing.
Our "constitutional court" is the U.S. Supreme Court and that is a self assumed duty (the U.S. Constitution does not spell out who determines disputes about what is and is not constitutional--which is probably part of the reason your does). I believe that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled these laws constitutional, although it is possible they have just refused to take any cases on these laws. If the latter is the case, that means that all lesser courts that have ruled on these laws have ruled them constitutional.
It seems that you Americans are pretty screwed then.
I would agree that actions are the province of law, not beliefs. However, if you never take any actions based on your beliefs, I will never know what they are. Therefore even people who want to outlaw certain beliefs, are actually only outlawing the action of expressing those beliefs.
Laws should be based on common sense and factual decisions, not on religious beliefs.
It was gone for many decades there. Any bets on how long it will take them to get a government that does not act in the best interest of all people there, if they ever get one? Hint: even in the so-called democratic countries, a government making politics for the people, and not for themselves and their surrounding lobbyists, is a rare thing.
Well, the people who wrote the U.S. Constitution were dead long before this law was passed, so we will not be able to get their opinions on it. So, any other suggestions as to who gets to decide if a new law is constitutional or not?
Don't you have a constitutional court? And doesn't your constitution even allow you to shoot gov't officials when they make or enforce unconstitutional laws? So, if the judges of this constitutional court don't do their jobs, just shoot'em!:) A solution including a greater use of common sense and civilized manners would be to quit electing representatives who are more or less just greedy powermongers, in favor of people who would view themselves as servants of all the people.
So, you wish people would stop believing that they should attack others who have different beliefs? That is a fine thing to believe, but not very useful in establishing the high ground against people who do not share that belief. What exactly are you going to do about the people who believe that those who believe differently than themselves should be attacked? Attack them? Use the law to outlaw their belief? How is that different than their attempts to use the law to outlaw your beliefs?
It's actions, not beliefs, that have to be outlawed, don't you get that?
If a modern DA were sent back in time and tried to operate then the way they do now, he would probably be literally tarred and feathered by an angry public within a year.
He has taste, and a good one. BL is made by David E. Kelly, who also created "Picket Fences" and "Ally McBeal", IIRC. They all are society satires disguised as dramas.
Because I can hardly stand TOS and James T. Kirk anymore, I was very suspicious when a friend advertised BL to me. But I had to admit that Shatner is brilliant in the Danny Crane role!
Slashdot Mirror
It's not OT. duckduckgo is a search engine that doesn't track you in the way Google and Bing do, read https://duckduckgo.com/about.html
There is a shorter URL: https://dukgo.com/
Tell that to a gay guy who just got his ass kicked by homophobes.
Agreed, but that does also happen when those sorry excuses for a human see that you are gay when you go out, without any Internet involved.
Tell that to a recovered alcoholic or drug addict (FU AA, people can recover - I've seen it!) who got his shit together but can't get a job or make social contacts.
Would you really want idiots as social contacts or employers?
Or tell that to an atheist who is considered not to have an "values" and therefore can't get a job. Yeah, try and prove it - illegal my ass!
Would you really want to work for a company run by religious fundamentalists?
Maybe "HIS" mom is a hot MILF? What's wrong with that?
Weren't the printheads for Epson printers almost as expensive as a new printer, sometimes even more expensive? For Canon, they are available for a halfway reasonable price (or were when I last checked some years ago). I also prefer Canon because they are the company with the least (technical and legal) actions against refilling/remaking.
Hm, let's not confuse my actual view of the world as it is now and my vision of an ideal world. In the latter, people are wise enough to do good just because they understand where sayings like "don't to to others what you don't want to be done to yourself" come from. In my actual world view, I am aware that far too many people don't give a fuck about others and our planet, they mostly just care for what they have and how to make that more.
Attila, I like a good discussion, but I don't think this will lead anywhere further. So, if you don't mind, let's set an EOD here.
No, I'll stick to Canon inkjet printers. Separate printhead and cartridges, in the "better" models even separate tanks for the colors.
They already know enough about playing with people's emotions. How do you think they manipulated the masses to elect them?
Husbands can't even recognize their wives facial expressions after being married for 20 years.
That is probably a consequence of many occurrences like this:
Husband, recognizing sad/angry/whatever expression: "Honey, you look sad/angry/whatever, what's bothering you?"
Wife: "Nothing, it's all fine."
Adobe's cash cow isn't Flash-based Video or Interactive Flash Games/Apps. It is non-interactive Flash Ads.
Ah, OK. Thanks to a certain Vladimir Palant (maker of Adblock Plus), I wasn't very much aware of that :)
This converter only converts Flash Animations to HTML5, ActionScript (which is needed for Flash Games and Apps) isn't supported. Flash Video Players also rely on ActionScript.
LOL, their Player isn't able to play a .flv file, which IIRC just contains H.264 video and MP3 audio, just by itself, there must be some scripting done? Ridiculously lame!
And I didn't say you have to, I just took it for a fact that about everybody, except for some few pathological cases, does.
Don't you care for your children, grandchildren and so on? Or at least the kids of your relatives and friends, if you have none of our own (yet) like me?
OK, it's SciFi, not fantasy, but I like the view on sex in some of Heinlein's books like "Stranger in a Strange Land".
I said it's a good base to start with, not that they should be enforced exactly like written. Except for the parts that restrict families to one man and one woman (and their kids), I don't see so much religiosity here.
I know that my ideal world is unrealistic, humankind is just too busy wasting this planet and killing each other in their greed for wealth and power. Common sense should tell that this way leads to our own extinction.
People use that Adobe stuff to make their sites, because it is so widely spread. Now, if there is an alternative like HTML5, where you can do about the same without having to buy Adobe's expensive stuff, the sales of their Flash creation tools will decrease greatly.
If you want to make a Flash site, you need to buy stuff from Adobe, or at least stuff where Adobe gets license fees. If you want to make a HTML5 site, you can do that without Adobe earning a cent.
But then the people could decide between many different toolsets, they weren't bound to Adobe's as they are with Flash.
It would make Flashplayer obsolete. That would lead to more and more site owners making their sites in HTML5 directly instead of doing it in Flash and then converting it. Which would be a fine thing for me.
This is like MS offering a converter for Windows applications to run on Linux. I'm fine with that, although I don't get what sense Adobe sees in that help to kill off one of their cash cows.
All laws are based on beliefs and there is no way to separate religious beliefs from other beliefs. What one considers to be "common sense". derives from one's world view. One's world view is a product of one's religion. Facts do not provide any direct basis for passing laws. It is not until those facts are passed through a value system that one has something that is the basis for laws.
You don't need to be religious to have a world view. Mine for example is based on how I experienced the world, and that does not include any proof nor sufficient evidence for the existence of any god or higher power.
For the common sense, I mean it like this: no one wants to be killed himself, so killing someone should be illegal, with very little exceptions (like when killing an attacker in direct self-defense is the only way to defend your own life). For those needing some help with it, the 30 articles of the https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikisource/en/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights are a good base to start with, as this declaration has been accepted worldwide in 1948, although even today you can hardly find any country not violating more or less of them.
In my ideal world, humankind has become wise enough to live together in peace and harmony without a need for laws telling them how to do that. Yes, I know that my lifespan is much too short to have a chance to experience that myself. As I'm afraid that we will have extincted our human race long before having reached such enlightenment, that is probably a good thing.
Our "constitutional court" is the U.S. Supreme Court and that is a self assumed duty (the U.S. Constitution does not spell out who determines disputes about what is and is not constitutional--which is probably part of the reason your does). I believe that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled these laws constitutional, although it is possible they have just refused to take any cases on these laws. If the latter is the case, that means that all lesser courts that have ruled on these laws have ruled them constitutional.
It seems that you Americans are pretty screwed then.
I would agree that actions are the province of law, not beliefs. However, if you never take any actions based on your beliefs, I will never know what they are. Therefore even people who want to outlaw certain beliefs, are actually only outlawing the action of expressing those beliefs.
Laws should be based on common sense and factual decisions, not on religious beliefs.
It was gone for many decades there. Any bets on how long it will take them to get a government that does not act in the best interest of all people there, if they ever get one? Hint: even in the so-called democratic countries, a government making politics for the people, and not for themselves and their surrounding lobbyists, is a rare thing.
Well, the people who wrote the U.S. Constitution were dead long before this law was passed, so we will not be able to get their opinions on it. So, any other suggestions as to who gets to decide if a new law is constitutional or not?
Don't you have a constitutional court? And doesn't your constitution even allow you to shoot gov't officials when they make or enforce unconstitutional laws? So, if the judges of this constitutional court don't do their jobs, just shoot'em! :) A solution including a greater use of common sense and civilized manners would be to quit electing representatives who are more or less just greedy powermongers, in favor of people who would view themselves as servants of all the people.
So, you wish people would stop believing that they should attack others who have different beliefs? That is a fine thing to believe, but not very useful in establishing the high ground against people who do not share that belief. What exactly are you going to do about the people who believe that those who believe differently than themselves should be attacked? Attack them? Use the law to outlaw their belief? How is that different than their attempts to use the law to outlaw your beliefs?
It's actions, not beliefs, that have to be outlawed, don't you get that?
It's about highly educated people, not about uneducated manual workers, so that shouldn't be the problem.
If a modern DA were sent back in time and tried to operate then the way they do now, he would probably be literally tarred and feathered by an angry public within a year.
You should absolutely restore this tradition.
He has taste, and a good one. BL is made by David E. Kelly, who also created "Picket Fences" and "Ally McBeal", IIRC. They all are society satires disguised as dramas.
Because I can hardly stand TOS and James T. Kirk anymore, I was very suspicious when a friend advertised BL to me. But I had to admit that Shatner is brilliant in the Danny Crane role!