I am just going to mark this day as the day I stand still. I was pretty sure that there was no chance this wouldn't pass since it was attached to the military/tsounami bill but enough is enough. Unless it get's overturned this country is finished. Time to find a decent place to live.
Because they have to - it's the strategy they have been following and it's a strategy too difficult to change quickly. Too many people are entrenched in their decison and those people don't want to admit that their way leads to a dead end. From their perspective it's just business, which is really just a complex game to them, and so it's better to crash and burn than admit that someone else has a better method.
Sorry,:) I'm stuck on the other side. I don't think you can believe anything really you just have to muddle your way through. The major dilemma being that everyone muddles differently. Which could be, if pressed, a very weak version of belief - I guess it's all in the emphasis...
Well, two out of four on the list. I do think serial murderers are bad and that I am awake. I do not believe that life on earth matters (mine or anyone's - not in a depressing way, in a "that's just the way it is" way (which is also a belief)) The Matrix (brain in a vat) is tricky. I can't actually rule out the possibility so I don't believe that it's not possible but it ends up being irrelevant (since you'll never know) so I ignore it (like religion).
In the end I try to take what is close as being proved vaild as being worthy of belief. But I mean in a weak sense. When most people talk about beleif they mean it in a veracious sort of way. Since there is always an underlying doubt I can only hold belief in a weak state. Sort of like probability. I know (as much as I know anything for certain, which is unlikely) that not all lies will be found out. I could not force myself to believe something with such a low probablity which is why I misunderstood you. The probability is higher that "some" lies will be found out and since you never know which ones it's still a pretty reasonable assumption that one is better off not lying.
I would agree though that a belief about changing beliefs is a good thing. But it might be that you can only do that if belief is used in the weak sense.
It seems that statistical significance is about as close to proof as you can get for most things especially in a world understood through perception. In the end it's the beholder that chooses what to believe in. For instance, I've not seen enough to think that religions* are vaild but I understand that many, if not most, people are religious. The only certaintly is that you can be uncertain about most things. But you still have to move through the world and as such decisions have to be made on what you can be certain enough about and too uncertain about. And those decisions always seem to come down to individual perception.
*This has to be qualified since religions come in so many various forms. I have studied many and still have not found one that seems valid. Though it's clear that some are better or worse than others.
I mean a sturdy margin of error. Laws of physics margin of error. I.e. believe it till something better comes along and don't get emotionally tied to it. But I can see where rotflmao could come up. Belief should only be entertained in a very weak sense...
I think you point out the problem of belief with your last comment. You might want to believe that a lie will always be found out but in fact you "know" that that is not true. (Or, at least, I am guessing that you know that.) I think that could also be the difference between belief and hope. I might hope that all lies are found out but I couldn't believe that they are. I would agree that our actions often stem from our beliefs and in that sense beliefs do have consequences. However, I think that is more a curse than a blessing. Beliefs often become non-negotiable (dogmatism is a common occurance)which leads to strife more often than not or the potential for strife. I prefer skepticism.
If you can't prove it within a reasonable margin of error then there's no point in believing. It's like "Faith". "Faith" is one of the most meaningless words out there. It means almost exactly "belief with out reason" (or proof). When people say: "Well, I have faith." It reminds me of snotty kids who whine: "Because I feel like it."
I'd have to agree there. It could have been really good. The first page strip reminded me a little of Bill Watterson... If only Bill were still writing, those were the days.
Maybe you have to look at it on a deeper level. I think the ambiguity is what gives the move its value. Blood might make a movie unwatchable by children but it doesn't necessarily make it any good for adults. Blurring the lines between good and evil although simple in itself seems more and more unusual in entertainment... I've only seen a couple of his movies and so far this seems to be the strongest.
It will be interesting to see how the English translation of Japanese translation of the original story translates to the screen, and to see how it compares to the original English version...
Good point. You could use native vs. aboriginal to speak about individual vs ancestors. The problem word though is American. Since aboriginals were here before it was America there is debate about whether it's an appropriate term.
Stictly speaking it isn't PC anymore. Aboriginal is more appropriate. Yes, aboriginal and native mean pretty much the same thing...And because of the location it still ends up being Aboriginal American which completely defeats the purpose...
I learned to type with Mario Teaches Typing. One of the best typing tutorials out there... Games are viable in the classroom. It's absurd to argue that they have a direct result to obesity as you cannot eat the games...
With less than a week away, it seems like it would be difficult to add paper trails even to e-voting machines. Next Tuesday will be an interestingly chaotic day to say the least, especially with the R&D's swarm of lawyers standing by...
Slashdot Mirror
If they're doing it on their own time then they have control over it. They should license it to the company.
I am just going to mark this day as the day I stand still. I was pretty sure that there was no chance this wouldn't pass since it was attached to the military/tsounami bill but enough is enough. Unless it get's overturned this country is finished. Time to find a decent place to live.
Because they have to - it's the strategy they have been following and it's a strategy too difficult to change quickly. Too many people are entrenched in their decison and those people don't want to admit that their way leads to a dead end. From their perspective it's just business, which is really just a complex game to them, and so it's better to crash and burn than admit that someone else has a better method.
Sorry, :) I'm stuck on the other side. I don't think you can believe anything really you just have to muddle your way through. The major dilemma being that everyone muddles differently. Which could be, if pressed, a very weak version of belief - I guess it's all in the emphasis...
Well, two out of four on the list. I do think serial murderers are bad and that I am awake. I do not believe that life on earth matters (mine or anyone's - not in a depressing way, in a "that's just the way it is" way (which is also a belief)) The Matrix (brain in a vat) is tricky. I can't actually rule out the possibility so I don't believe that it's not possible but it ends up being irrelevant (since you'll never know) so I ignore it (like religion).
In the end I try to take what is close as being proved vaild as being worthy of belief. But I mean in a weak sense. When most people talk about beleif they mean it in a veracious sort of way. Since there is always an underlying doubt I can only hold belief in a weak state. Sort of like probability. I know (as much as I know anything for certain, which is unlikely) that not all lies will be found out. I could not force myself to believe something with such a low probablity which is why I misunderstood you. The probability is higher that "some" lies will be found out and since you never know which ones it's still a pretty reasonable assumption that one is better off not lying.
I would agree though that a belief about changing beliefs is a good thing. But it might be that you can only do that if belief is used in the weak sense.
It seems that statistical significance is about as close to proof as you can get for most things especially in a world understood through perception. In the end it's the beholder that chooses what to believe in. For instance, I've not seen enough to think that religions* are vaild but I understand that many, if not most, people are religious. The only certaintly is that you can be uncertain about most things. But you still have to move through the world and as such decisions have to be made on what you can be certain enough about and too uncertain about. And those decisions always seem to come down to individual perception. *This has to be qualified since religions come in so many various forms. I have studied many and still have not found one that seems valid. Though it's clear that some are better or worse than others.
I mean a sturdy margin of error. Laws of physics margin of error. I.e. believe it till something better comes along and don't get emotionally tied to it. But I can see where rotflmao could come up. Belief should only be entertained in a very weak sense...
I think you point out the problem of belief with your last comment. You might want to believe that a lie will always be found out but in fact you "know" that that is not true. (Or, at least, I am guessing that you know that.) I think that could also be the difference between belief and hope. I might hope that all lies are found out but I couldn't believe that they are. I would agree that our actions often stem from our beliefs and in that sense beliefs do have consequences. However, I think that is more a curse than a blessing. Beliefs often become non-negotiable (dogmatism is a common occurance)which leads to strife more often than not or the potential for strife. I prefer skepticism.
If you can't prove it within a reasonable margin of error then there's no point in believing. It's like "Faith". "Faith" is one of the most meaningless words out there. It means almost exactly "belief with out reason" (or proof). When people say: "Well, I have faith." It reminds me of snotty kids who whine: "Because I feel like it."
I think that would be an unconditional sweeet if it has Bill's notes from the Tenth Anniversary C&H.
I'd have to agree there. It could have been really good. The first page strip reminded me a little of Bill Watterson... If only Bill were still writing, those were the days.
I think the actual question turned out to be "What is your favorite blend of Earl Grey?" His just happend to be 42...
Maybe you have to look at it on a deeper level. I think the ambiguity is what gives the move its value. Blood might make a movie unwatchable by children but it doesn't necessarily make it any good for adults. Blurring the lines between good and evil although simple in itself seems more and more unusual in entertainment... I've only seen a couple of his movies and so far this seems to be the strongest.
It will be interesting to see how the English translation of Japanese translation of the original story translates to the screen, and to see how it compares to the original English version...
Good point. You could use native vs. aboriginal to speak about individual vs ancestors. The problem word though is American. Since aboriginals were here before it was America there is debate about whether it's an appropriate term.
Stictly speaking it isn't PC anymore. Aboriginal is more appropriate. Yes, aboriginal and native mean pretty much the same thing...And because of the location it still ends up being Aboriginal American which completely defeats the purpose...
Yes, I have aboriginal descendents.
I've had it since it came out and still haven't played it on Live yet. Then again, I haven't finished the campaign...
Taking it at face value: It looks good but not as good as it I'd expected considering what the leap in graphics "should" be.
That only some of these got through than all of them or is it worse that any got through at all.
I call it the "Be glad we only broke your kneecap. We were going break both your arms as well." approach.
That will alter then next DOOM game...
I learned to type with Mario Teaches Typing. One of the best typing tutorials out there... Games are viable in the classroom. It's absurd to argue that they have a direct result to obesity as you cannot eat the games...
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
Different sites have different stats, but one civilian death is one too many.
With less than a week away, it seems like it would be difficult to add paper trails even to e-voting machines. Next Tuesday will be an interestingly chaotic day to say the least, especially with the R&D's swarm of lawyers standing by...
It seems like they were pretty far into development...
The beginning of bush's second response:
"I support innovative communications technologies like Voice Over Internet Protocal (VoIP),"
Now, does anyone really think he knows what VOIP is, or even how to spell internet? His only evidence is that protocol is misspelled.
Seems like easy proof that someone else wrote the answers...