or:
Passenger looks annoyed, angry, uncomfortable - turns out they have to go through pointless security jumps that could be made to be efficient and less invasive but then the terrorists win, so person is hassled to the point of breaking and is made late by a line that can't possibly move slower. Also they had to leave home really early to get to the airport hours in advance.
Honestly, how do you not look "suspicious" by their guidelines when the process is the most annoying part of flying to some people. Self fulfilling prophecy.
LOL, Sounds like my mate coming back from Cork where he was informed he had to put his little bottles in a clear plastic bag to be x-rayed. He politely asks "If they're being x-rayed why does the bag have to be clear?" and get the response "Well you wouldn't want one of them on your plane would you?".
OK... so now it turns out you can buy the bags - 2 bags for a Euro, but a chap who has (literally) just put his stuff through the x-ray machine says "hey, you can use my bag 'cos I don't need it any more". My mate thanks him but is then told that the bags can't be used more than once (!) and you have to buy them, 2 for a Euro, and presumably he'll never be able to use the 2nd one as they'll not know whether it was used before or not!
So, not just Security Theatre at Cork, but a uniformed pick-pocket too!
As securing all passengers with 100% failproof methods is far more intrusive than what's currently proposed, we need to look elsewhere.
That's the problem right there. It is impossible to 100% guarantee safety. Once you accept the fact that travel is risky you are just quibbling about what level of inconvenience is acceptable for whatever level of safety is provided. For me, I'd prefer less inconvenience for a slightly higher risk, because the level of risk is actually really low anyway! More people die on the road just in the US per year than are killed worldwide by terrorism of _every_ kind, let alone just from flight-related terrorism.
Let's take it to the limit and envisage some wonder-security that could guarantee 100% safety but that takes, say, 6 hours extra per flight and costs so much that flying is no longer an option for the vast majority of people (which is at least somewhat realistic!). OK, so flying is "safe" now, but no one can afford it. That is obviously never going to happen because the airlines all go out of business. ... and Tel Aviv is a special case because the risk is higher there, and it takes hours extra to get on a flight and they themselves will tell you it doesn't 100% guarantee your safety!
So we have to accept some level of risk if we wish the convenience of air travel.
During the height of the IRA bombing campaign in London we took reasonable steps (don't leave unattended bags anywhere, etc) to reduce the risks but in general we just got on with it. That is by far the best way for society to deal with these sorts of problems.
Much like paying off hijackers/kidnappers - now we've learnt that lesson for air travel and yet the big shipping companies keep paying off the Somali pirates. That should be illegal. It is obvious, as an observer, that paying off hijackers/kidnappers is the wrong thing to do, so perhaps the UN should pass a resolution saying that no nation or organisation should ever pay them off. That will be bad for some individuals but will be good for society.
> but it simply doesn't make sense to try to save every
> possible bird here,
What harm is there in trying?
> from either a monetary or moral perspective.
Oh, right, you're really just worried about the cost. Of course. But hey, if you add "or moral" in there, it makes it seem like you really thought this out and that you're not really just a greedy miser. You should (do?) work for BP, it's great thinking like yours that got them where they are now.
Woah there bubba!
If the birds die anyway (ingested oil, yada yada yada) then all you've done by cleaning (the outside!) is prolong their suffering -> moral perspective.
I kinda agree that some cleaning of animals is warranted, but the loopy (armchair) environmentalist shout of clean them all often helps more to salve your needs than the half-dead creatures you're intending to help. What is needed is some calm rather than the local villagers rampaging about with pitch forks and flaming torches looking to kill the monster!
For the umpteenth time, only economic liability is capped to 75 million dollars. And that is only if BP and/or Halliburton and/or Transocean cannot be found to be at fault for the spill.
Fixed that for you...
... and whilst we're at it, let's have a quick look at the time a US company (Union Carbide) screwed the pooch on foreign soil (Bhopal) and perhaps use that as a yardstick for what the US deems a reasonable cleanup. From the linked page...
"Some 25 years after the gas leak, 390 tons of toxic chemicals abandoned at the UCIL plant continue to leak and pollute the groundwater in the region and affect thousands of Bhopal residents who depend on it..."
That would be the monster debt that Labour inherited from the previous Conservative government that presided over the three day week.
So the Three Day Week was the Tories fault was it? I lived through those times and also remember the blackouts that followed under Labour when the power failed during the Winter of Discontent, both of which were the left wing unions thinking the world owed them a living and the rest of us could just go hang!
Thatcher broke the unions and paid off the debts, and notice nuLabour's Bliar and Clown didn't seem overly keen on restoring their powers because they remember Callaghan trying to curb expenses and the unions flexing their might and were quite happy to keep the status quo thank you very much!
I'd agree that the sell off of British Rail wasn't a good thing, but no goverment is ever all good or indeed all bad, though it's too soon for me to be able to recall any of the good things nuLabour did for us - oh yes, 24 hour drinking.
The other thing is that BP may attempt to offload responsibility on Halliburton and other contractors, that's all.
Of course it is just possible that some of the contractors at the site may have been instrumental in the blow-out and resulting deaths and pollution and therefore rightly called upon to shoulder some of the responsibility and accept some of the blame.
He needs to grow a pair of balls and do something about this.
Like what for example? Whilst I'd agree that it certainly looks like BP were negligent it isn't proven yet, and they are the best hope for capping the well and cleaning up the mess. Seeing all the 'mercins hollerin' and a-marching up and down with the pitch forks and torches is kinds sweet though - Something must be done... yep, s'right, and that something is:-
1) let BP cap the well and clean up their mess
2) a proper investigation to find the ratio between (bad)luck and negligence amongst all the companies involved (many of which are US companies remember)
3) then decide what, if any, punishment should be meted out, and to whom.
All this over exciting mud-slinging before the facts are known seems decidedly counter productive to me, and so like the US "sue 'em" culture - you call your lawyer before you call 911!
All efforts, from all quarters, should be focussed on fixing the problem FIRST.
BP does significant business in the US, I'm sure that their US operations are a US incorporated subsidiaries and even if they weren't it's not like they'd just walk away from a market the size of the US.
BP have said they are going to pay for the cleanup. They have already passed the legal limit of their fiscal responsibility and are continuing to pay. If I was BP that's also what I be doing too! They want to pay, but not so much to appease the US people, but to try and make it more likely that they will, at some future time, be allowed to continue chasing the deep oil deposits because there's a LOT of money in them thar wells!
It certainly does look like the fuck-up fairy was alive and well in the BP hierarchy and I'd guess that BP are fully cognisant of the depth of excrement they now find themselves in. The fact of the matter is that BP are also the people best equipped to dig themselves, and the gulf, out of it. They need time to do this.
Once the dust settles there likely will be massive improvements to the safety requirements for all deep drilling operations around the world and BP will be the company with that valuable experience.
Granted, the Tories might well screw up the country - but at least we'll have our freedom.
(Hopefully the Liberals will keep them in check anyway, thanks to the coalition. Couldn't be much better really!)
The last time the Tories took power from Labour they inherited a monster debt too, and managed to re-pay it and hand over a healthy economy to nuLabour who have sold the family silver (and Gold at the lowest price possible remember!). (nu)Labour have never been able to cut funding to all their left-wing union buddies and so have ALWAYS borrowed heavily when in power, whilst I am confident the Tories (and esp. now they have the Lib Dems as their Jiminy Cricket conscience!) will have the balls to cut back where necessary and actually pull us out of this quagmire of debt nuLabour's Bliar and end of boom and bust Clown left us with!
Obviously, once the economy is fixed we have to be on our metal keeping an watchful eye on them to make sure they don't start screwing the pooch again!
If your SIM was purchased outside the United States, expect zero bars of signal.
Of course. I hadn't thought of that. Must have been pure luck and happenstance that my UK mobile worked a treat when I rocked up in the US.
Get a pre-paid 'phone from anywhere non-US and use it in the US. Perhaps a bit expensive but I don't suppose the criminal underworld will be too upset about that.
GP Post (by me) a Troll? How so?
[brought to you by the letters W, T, and F]
Anyway...
So if I view pirated movies then I am assisting the market and encouraging the creation of more movies?
... if you are arguing that people who view pirated movies never pay for any movies then I guess that's a valid argument. It is, IMHO, more likely that the pirator of movies also, on occasions (eg pay day?) will also fork out the five bucks and occasionally splash out on watching a legitimate copy.
The point is that if there were no market (AKA demand) for CP people wouldn't be making CP.
If you are a consumer of CP then you are, by definition, the market, regardless of whether or not you manage to get free access or if you, ahem, splash out for it.
The point about not "protecting people from child pornography" is well made though.
There's no reference to water polo in his biographer's homepage.
Most probably because his prowess was such that any mention would steer the biography away from the purely "math guy" approach.
As I understand it Alan Turing did try water polo once but he pleaded with the powers the be that the sorrowful occasion be omitted from all records as it was such an unmitigated disaster. The horse drowned.
The whole idea of protecting people from kiddie porn is just ludicrous. The laws are supposed to be about protecting the _kids_ from being exploited, not "protecting" adults from being exploiters (if you consider downloading free stuff from the internet to be "exploitive"... IMHO the exploitation has already happened and anyone downloading the content isn't doing anything to help the exploiters unless they are paying for it).
The point is well made that if there was no market for child porn (or indeed any sort of porn) then there would be far fewer people, if any, making it. Being a consumer of a 'good' creates a market that needs to be fed, hence it can be argued that by being a viewer of CP you are assisting the 'market' (as a consumer) and therefore encourage the creation of more 'product', which in this case involves the abuse of minors.
Personally, I think it is indeed a valid argument but your mileage may vary.
The pope seems to have the worst case of moral relativism anyway - stealing crackers is worse than genocide and child abuse isn't all THAT bad... at least if a priest is doing it.
I think the Pope (back when he was Cardinal Ratzenberger and heavily involved in the covering up of these kiddie-fiddler priests) probably does think that child abuse is bad, but he thinks (or at least thought!) that the damage done to The Church by exposing these sorts of cases was worse than the damage done to the children... from the communication he signed and sent back to the US for one specific incident:-
"This court, although it regards the arguments presented in favour of removal in this case to be of grave significance, nevertheless deems it necessary to consider the good of the universal church together with that of the petitioner, and it is also unable to make light of the detriment that granting the dispensation can provoke with the community of Christ's faithful, particularly regarding the young age of the petitioner."
So, it is better, in Cardinal Ratzenberger's mind (the man who is now God's representative on Earth!), to protect the church rather than protect the children.
There will always be paedophiles and they do what they do. It's a bad thing they do, but presumably they are driven to it by some chemical imbalance providing urges they cannot control.
On the flip side of the very dirty coin is the Organisation called "The Catholic Church" which let them continue doing it. That, to me at least, is the greater evil. To put the good of any organisation over the welfare of the children in their care is heinous indeed... and that the organisation in question is supposed to be a "religion" is almost laughable if it wasn't so sad.
So, Pope, me old mucker, don't bother coming to Britain 'cos we don't want you here! We don't need the expense and we can't stomach the hypocrisy! Let's not even touch on the fact that Catholicism doesn't recognise our local flavour of Christianity, The Church of England, or indeed that religion itself is way past its sell-by date.
I'd see this the same as finding out who all the relatives of the Google CEO's are, age, name, photo, and where they work/live/school and publish all that public information.
Aside from that, I can't ever see a situation where I would need to be looking in one direction while firing blindly in another.
and
Wait, uh, how do you line up a target your not looking at?
Years ago I played a state-of-the-art full immersion shooter with headset for visuals and gloves for pointing, etc. The graphics were pretty lame (compared with the current crop) but it was awesome to be able to run through a room whilst focusing on the door I was running towards and be able to shoot the bad guys on either side by aiming just using my peripheral vision.
So, I wasn't (directly) looking at the target(s), or indeed firing blindly (as I hit most with the first shot!) and with good (binocular) vision you just "know" where the targets are and can 'point' at them with yer gun(s).
Sure, you're not going to get so many H E A D S H O Ts, but it was really good fun, even with the crappy old graphics!
And in Ohio. In my city, there's no way you can make a left turn otherwise.
No need for left turn lanes and associated traffic light phasing slowing traffic flow and blocking junctions, esp. in the US where most cities are grids, just go to the next set of lights and turn right, then right again, then right again and drive straight over the junction you wanted to turn left at.
... Just as it is wrong for someone who is Pro-Creationism to call someone who is Pro-Evolution a moron who believes in fantasies, it is also wrong for the opposite to happen....
Whoa there boy... you seem to be attributing equal weight to both concepts. There is an unbelievably large amount of evidence to support evolution and in all the time that people have been finding fossil evidence not one piece has been found to support creationism, and if it had you can bet your bottom dollar it would have been splashed around the globe and lauded by the religious fraternity as proof of (their flavour of) god.
Comparing creationists to evolutionists without at least some nod to the different weightings attributed to their likelihood is akin to saying there's nothing to choose between the 'globe earth' and 'flat earth' camps, and people rightly pour scorn on flat-earthers!
... While "believe in" sounds stupid, irritating, and demeaning to science, I would still rather be counted in such a poll as believing in evolution, rather than not believing.
Yep. Case in point, I noticed some friend had joined a Facebook group with a similar title because it was a response to another group for people who don't believe, and to show I'm not taking sides I'll show both links... please feel free to join either, neither, or indeed both at your whim...
I took the "Do believe" folks to task over their title but it was simply a response to the religion inspired "don't believe" group. Interestingly, if we're talking semantics, whilst I don't believe in evolution, I do believe that evolution is (currently) the most likely mechanism for the current incumbents on the planet. But it is a fine line to tread when having discussions with the overly religious and their comparisons between their particular flavour of religion and science.
These sorts of lists are also pretty meaningless as shown by Project Steve which is a list of scientists with the given name Stephen or a variation thereof (e.g., Stephanie, Stefan, Esteban, etc.) who "support evolution".
My favourite bit:
The list pokes fun at such endeavors in a "light-hearted" manner to make it clear that, "We did not wish to mislead the public into thinking that scientific issues are decided by who has the longer list of scientists!"
Slashdot Mirror
or: Passenger looks annoyed, angry, uncomfortable - turns out they have to go through pointless security jumps that could be made to be efficient and less invasive but then the terrorists win, so person is hassled to the point of breaking and is made late by a line that can't possibly move slower. Also they had to leave home really early to get to the airport hours in advance.
Honestly, how do you not look "suspicious" by their guidelines when the process is the most annoying part of flying to some people. Self fulfilling prophecy.
LOL, Sounds like my mate coming back from Cork where he was informed he had to put his little bottles in a clear plastic bag to be x-rayed. He politely asks "If they're being x-rayed why does the bag have to be clear?" and get the response "Well you wouldn't want one of them on your plane would you?".
OK ... so now it turns out you can buy the bags - 2 bags for a Euro, but a chap who has (literally) just put his stuff through the x-ray machine says "hey, you can use my bag 'cos I don't need it any more". My mate thanks him but is then told that the bags can't be used more than once (!) and you have to buy them, 2 for a Euro, and presumably he'll never be able to use the 2nd one as they'll not know whether it was used before or not!
So, not just Security Theatre at Cork, but a uniformed pick-pocket too!
What a total joke!
As securing all passengers with 100% failproof methods is far more intrusive than what's currently proposed, we need to look elsewhere.
That's the problem right there. It is impossible to 100% guarantee safety. Once you accept the fact that travel is risky you are just quibbling about what level of inconvenience is acceptable for whatever level of safety is provided. For me, I'd prefer less inconvenience for a slightly higher risk, because the level of risk is actually really low anyway! More people die on the road just in the US per year than are killed worldwide by terrorism of _every_ kind, let alone just from flight-related terrorism.
Let's take it to the limit and envisage some wonder-security that could guarantee 100% safety but that takes, say, 6 hours extra per flight and costs so much that flying is no longer an option for the vast majority of people (which is at least somewhat realistic!). OK, so flying is "safe" now, but no one can afford it. That is obviously never going to happen because the airlines all go out of business.
... and Tel Aviv is a special case because the risk is higher there, and it takes hours extra to get on a flight and they themselves will tell you it doesn't 100% guarantee your safety!
So we have to accept some level of risk if we wish the convenience of air travel.
During the height of the IRA bombing campaign in London we took reasonable steps (don't leave unattended bags anywhere, etc) to reduce the risks but in general we just got on with it. That is by far the best way for society to deal with these sorts of problems.
Much like paying off hijackers/kidnappers - now we've learnt that lesson for air travel and yet the big shipping companies keep paying off the Somali pirates. That should be illegal. It is obvious, as an observer, that paying off hijackers/kidnappers is the wrong thing to do, so perhaps the UN should pass a resolution saying that no nation or organisation should ever pay them off. That will be bad for some individuals but will be good for society.
> but it simply doesn't make sense to try to save every > possible bird here,
What harm is there in trying?
> from either a monetary or moral perspective.
Oh, right, you're really just worried about the cost. Of course. But hey, if you add "or moral" in there, it makes it seem like you really thought this out and that you're not really just a greedy miser. You should (do?) work for BP, it's great thinking like yours that got them where they are now.
Woah there bubba!
If the birds die anyway (ingested oil, yada yada yada) then all you've done by cleaning (the outside!) is prolong their suffering -> moral perspective.
I kinda agree that some cleaning of animals is warranted, but the loopy (armchair) environmentalist shout of clean them all often helps more to salve your needs than the half-dead creatures you're intending to help. What is needed is some calm rather than the local villagers rampaging about with pitch forks and flaming torches looking to kill the monster!
For the umpteenth time, only economic liability is capped to 75 million dollars. And that is only if BP and/or Halliburton and/or Transocean cannot be found to be at fault for the spill.
Fixed that for you ...
"Some 25 years after the gas leak, 390 tons of toxic chemicals abandoned at the UCIL plant continue to leak and pollute the groundwater in the region and affect thousands of Bhopal residents who depend on it ..."
That would be the monster debt that Labour inherited from the previous Conservative government that presided over the three day week.
So the Three Day Week was the Tories fault was it? I lived through those times and also remember the blackouts that followed under Labour when the power failed during the Winter of Discontent, both of which were the left wing unions thinking the world owed them a living and the rest of us could just go hang!
Thatcher broke the unions and paid off the debts, and notice nuLabour's Bliar and Clown didn't seem overly keen on restoring their powers because they remember Callaghan trying to curb expenses and the unions flexing their might and were quite happy to keep the status quo thank you very much!
I'd agree that the sell off of British Rail wasn't a good thing, but no goverment is ever all good or indeed all bad, though it's too soon for me to be able to recall any of the good things nuLabour did for us - oh yes, 24 hour drinking.
The other thing is that BP may attempt to offload responsibility on Halliburton and other contractors, that's all.
Of course it is just possible that some of the contractors at the site may have been instrumental in the blow-out and resulting deaths and pollution and therefore rightly called upon to shoulder some of the responsibility and accept some of the blame.
He needs to grow a pair of balls and do something about this.
Like what for example? Whilst I'd agree that it certainly looks like BP were negligent it isn't proven yet, and they are the best hope for capping the well and cleaning up the mess. Seeing all the 'mercins hollerin' and a-marching up and down with the pitch forks and torches is kinds sweet though - Something must be done ... yep, s'right, and that something is :-
1) let BP cap the well and clean up their mess
2) a proper investigation to find the ratio between (bad)luck and negligence amongst all the companies involved (many of which are US companies remember)
3) then decide what, if any, punishment should be meted out, and to whom.
All this over exciting mud-slinging before the facts are known seems decidedly counter productive to me, and so like the US "sue 'em" culture - you call your lawyer before you call 911!
All efforts, from all quarters, should be focussed on fixing the problem FIRST.
BP does significant business in the US, I'm sure that their US operations are a US incorporated subsidiaries and even if they weren't it's not like they'd just walk away from a market the size of the US.
BP have said they are going to pay for the cleanup. They have already passed the legal limit of their fiscal responsibility and are continuing to pay. If I was BP that's also what I be doing too! They want to pay, but not so much to appease the US people, but to try and make it more likely that they will, at some future time, be allowed to continue chasing the deep oil deposits because there's a LOT of money in them thar wells!
It certainly does look like the fuck-up fairy was alive and well in the BP hierarchy and I'd guess that BP are fully cognisant of the depth of excrement they now find themselves in. The fact of the matter is that BP are also the people best equipped to dig themselves, and the gulf, out of it. They need time to do this.
Once the dust settles there likely will be massive improvements to the safety requirements for all deep drilling operations around the world and BP will be the company with that valuable experience.
Fingers crossed they can stem the flow soon ...
Granted, the Tories might well screw up the country - but at least we'll have our freedom.
(Hopefully the Liberals will keep them in check anyway, thanks to the coalition. Couldn't be much better really!)
The last time the Tories took power from Labour they inherited a monster debt too, and managed to re-pay it and hand over a healthy economy to nuLabour who have sold the family silver (and Gold at the lowest price possible remember!). (nu)Labour have never been able to cut funding to all their left-wing union buddies and so have ALWAYS borrowed heavily when in power, whilst I am confident the Tories (and esp. now they have the Lib Dems as their Jiminy Cricket conscience!) will have the balls to cut back where necessary and actually pull us out of this quagmire of debt nuLabour's Bliar and end of boom and bust Clown left us with!
Obviously, once the economy is fixed we have to be on our metal keeping an watchful eye on them to make sure they don't start screwing the pooch again!
I like mine . . . no really, I do.
I don't think they will be making it a crime to keep one if you already have it.
It's more insidious than that. Who buys the prepaids? poor people.
So it's all about tracking the poor.
Of course it is. The, er, rich(?), with their mobiles/cells on monthly contracts, couldn't possibly be tracked already ... oh ... wait ...
If your SIM was purchased outside the United States, expect zero bars of signal.
Of course. I hadn't thought of that. Must have been pure luck and happenstance that my UK mobile worked a treat when I rocked up in the US.
Get a pre-paid 'phone from anywhere non-US and use it in the US. Perhaps a bit expensive but I don't suppose the criminal underworld will be too upset about that.
Anyway...
So if I view pirated movies then I am assisting the market and encouraging the creation of more movies?
The point is that if there were no market (AKA demand) for CP people wouldn't be making CP. If you are a consumer of CP then you are, by definition, the market, regardless of whether or not you manage to get free access or if you, ahem, splash out for it.
The point about not "protecting people from child pornography" is well made though.
There's no reference to water polo in his biographer's homepage.
Most probably because his prowess was such that any mention would steer the biography away from the purely "math guy" approach.
As I understand it Alan Turing did try water polo once but he pleaded with the powers the be that the sorrowful occasion be omitted from all records as it was such an unmitigated disaster. The horse drowned.
The whole idea of protecting people from kiddie porn is just ludicrous. The laws are supposed to be about protecting the _kids_ from being exploited, not "protecting" adults from being exploiters (if you consider downloading free stuff from the internet to be "exploitive"... IMHO the exploitation has already happened and anyone downloading the content isn't doing anything to help the exploiters unless they are paying for it).
The point is well made that if there was no market for child porn (or indeed any sort of porn) then there would be far fewer people, if any, making it. Being a consumer of a 'good' creates a market that needs to be fed, hence it can be argued that by being a viewer of CP you are assisting the 'market' (as a consumer) and therefore encourage the creation of more 'product', which in this case involves the abuse of minors.
Personally, I think it is indeed a valid argument but your mileage may vary.
... time wasting legal choke ...
Time well spent legal choke
Fixed that for ya
If I had an Ass (equus asinus), I'd call it Fanny Front Bottom. Then I could slap my Ass; Fanny Front Bottom, on the Arse.
There, fixed ya sig for you.
The pope seems to have the worst case of moral relativism anyway - stealing crackers is worse than genocide and child abuse isn't all THAT bad... at least if a priest is doing it.
I think the Pope (back when he was Cardinal Ratzenberger and heavily involved in the covering up of these kiddie-fiddler priests) probably does think that child abuse is bad, but he thinks (or at least thought!) that the damage done to The Church by exposing these sorts of cases was worse than the damage done to the children ... from the communication he signed and sent back to the US for one specific incident:-
"This court, although it regards the arguments presented in favour of removal in this case to be of grave significance, nevertheless deems it necessary to consider the good of the universal church together with that of the petitioner, and it is also unable to make light of the detriment that granting the dispensation can provoke with the community of Christ's faithful, particularly regarding the young age of the petitioner."
So, it is better, in Cardinal Ratzenberger's mind (the man who is now God's representative on Earth!), to protect the church rather than protect the children.
There will always be paedophiles and they do what they do. It's a bad thing they do, but presumably they are driven to it by some chemical imbalance providing urges they cannot control. ... and that the organisation in question is supposed to be a "religion" is almost laughable if it wasn't so sad.
On the flip side of the very dirty coin is the Organisation called "The Catholic Church" which let them continue doing it. That, to me at least, is the greater evil. To put the good of any organisation over the welfare of the children in their care is heinous indeed
So, Pope, me old mucker, don't bother coming to Britain 'cos we don't want you here! We don't need the expense and we can't stomach the hypocrisy! Let's not even touch on the fact that Catholicism doesn't recognise our local flavour of Christianity, The Church of England, or indeed that religion itself is way past its sell-by date.
Well, if they've nothing to hide ...
Aside from that, I can't ever see a situation where I would need to be looking in one direction while firing blindly in another.
and
Wait, uh, how do you line up a target your not looking at?
Years ago I played a state-of-the-art full immersion shooter with headset for visuals and gloves for pointing, etc. The graphics were pretty lame (compared with the current crop) but it was awesome to be able to run through a room whilst focusing on the door I was running towards and be able to shoot the bad guys on either side by aiming just using my peripheral vision.
So, I wasn't (directly) looking at the target(s), or indeed firing blindly (as I hit most with the first shot!) and with good (binocular) vision you just "know" where the targets are and can 'point' at them with yer gun(s). Sure, you're not going to get so many H E A D S H O Ts, but it was really good fun, even with the crappy old graphics!
in soviet Russia, Yoda channels you!
in soviet Russia, Yoda you channels!
There ya go ... for you fixed it is.
Cool, that means I can downloaded another soul through a torrent.
Or maybe iSouls?
Sure is a crying shame it wasn't an rPod though eh!
And in Ohio. In my city, there's no way you can make a left turn otherwise.
No need for left turn lanes and associated traffic light phasing slowing traffic flow and blocking junctions, esp. in the US where most cities are grids, just go to the next set of lights and turn right, then right again, then right again and drive straight over the junction you wanted to turn left at.
Simples!
... Just as it is wrong for someone who is Pro-Creationism to call someone who is Pro-Evolution a moron who believes in fantasies, it is also wrong for the opposite to happen. ...
Whoa there boy ... you seem to be attributing equal weight to both concepts. There is an unbelievably large amount of evidence to support evolution and in all the time that people have been finding fossil evidence not one piece has been found to support creationism, and if it had you can bet your bottom dollar it would have been splashed around the globe and lauded by the religious fraternity as proof of (their flavour of) god.
Comparing creationists to evolutionists without at least some nod to the different weightings attributed to their likelihood is akin to saying there's nothing to choose between the 'globe earth' and 'flat earth' camps, and people rightly pour scorn on flat-earthers!
... While "believe in" sounds stupid, irritating, and demeaning to science, I would still rather be counted in such a poll as believing in evolution, rather than not believing.
Yep. Case in point, I noticed some friend had joined a Facebook group with a similar title because it was a response to another group for people who don't believe, and to show I'm not taking sides I'll show both links ... please feel free to join either, neither, or indeed both at your whim ...
we can find 1,000,000 people who don't believe in Evolution befor June Currently at 176290
We can find 1,000,000 people who DO believe in Evolution before June Currently at 398198
I took the "Do believe" folks to task over their title but it was simply a response to the religion inspired "don't believe" group. Interestingly, if we're talking semantics, whilst I don't believe in evolution, I do believe that evolution is (currently) the most likely mechanism for the current incumbents on the planet. But it is a fine line to tread when having discussions with the overly religious and their comparisons between their particular flavour of religion and science.
These sorts of lists are also pretty meaningless as shown by Project Steve which is a list of scientists with the given name Stephen or a variation thereof (e.g., Stephanie, Stefan, Esteban, etc.) who "support evolution".
My favourite bit:
The list pokes fun at such endeavors in a "light-hearted" manner to make it clear that, "We did not wish to mislead the public into thinking that scientific issues are decided by who has the longer list of scientists!"