Abrams is going to take Star Wars, remove all of the substance, and turn it into a bright-colored, flashy, plotless action movie devoid of all substance.
So basically Lucas' legacy is alive and well.
As a related aside - can anyone tell me if there's a way to get google to recognize you as country-agnostic? I still get localized information when I go there, even not signed on. I'd love to know if there were a way to get around that, so I get all the search results from every part of the globe....
Try Duck Duck Go, which is a very simple search engine along the lines of what Google used to be. They proudly proclaim the fact that they neither track you nor alter your search results based on your location or history.
What could possibly be more incriminating than the chief lobbyist for the MPAA openly threatening politicians who don't vote the way he would prefer? Let's face it, no amount of damning evidence is going to get the general populace to care.
This doesn't require an officer or a police car - it is a cheap piece of equipment that can be produced and purchased in large quantities. The only limit to the ability of the police to surveil the citizenry would be limited only by the procurement budget, and would be far less limited than it is today. Further, these devices are easily concealed, whereas a police car, even an unmarked one, is far harder to hide. Essentially these devices give the police nigh-infinite, limitless, covert surveillance capabilities.
Well, I didn't say that you had the reading skills of a five-year-old, but as you just demonstrated that you do, I'll let that claim stand. I have already successfully dismantled each and every one of the points in your post. I wasn't sure about it - I had actually started rebutting some of them - but then I realized that I had, indeed, already answered every single one of those points. Go ahead and check if you don't believe me. At this point you're arguing in circles and chalking my unwillingness to bow to your refusal to face the facts to... male stupidity? Astounding. Truly astounding. It seems fairly obvious that you just Can't Understand Normal Thinking. I think my work here is done.
Botanically tomatoes are fruits - I have never argued this, and it is in fact part of the point that I initially raised - but herearejustafewsourcesthatbackmeup. As you can see, legally and culinarily speaking, there are a whole hell of a lot of people who consider a tomato a vegetable. This is a fact. This is inarguable. All of your "technically"s aren't going to change this. This is the point that I initially made, this is the point that I have continued to make, and this is the point that you have continued to deny in the face of overwhelming evidence. My ego is not particularly connected to what people think of tomatoes. Maybe you, on the other hand, should consider why yours is so connected to putting on blinders and denying simple facts as they are.
Walk into any restaurant today and ask for a fruit salad. Tell me how many serve you one that contains tomatoes and cucumbers. The simple fact is that enough people calling a tomato a vegetable does, for all intents and purposes, mean that a tomato is considered a vegetable. You know why? Because of the point that I keep bringing up: nobody gives a flying fuck about the biological function of a piece of food. A word's meaning is whatever people make it; that's the way language works. If eaters, who vastly outnumber botanists, want to call tomatoes a vegetable, who are you to tell them that they are wrong? You're tilting at windmills. You can sit in your lab all day and wax scientific about how fruits are ovaries and that is just wonderful for you, but the simple fact is that when a chef asks you to hand him some vegetables he sure as shit means those cucumbers and tomatoes and peppers sitting right there, and when the people in the restaurant order grilled vegetables that is exactly what they expect. No amount of hooting about the deficit (wtf?) is going to change the fact that you're clearly a terrible cook.
I can see I won't get through to you, most likely because you are being deliberately obtuse through obstinacy. Congratulations, you have the arguing skills of a five year old. On reading this, I fully expect you to put your hands on your hips and pout.
Repeat after me: Culinarily speaking, nobody gives a shit what the biological function of an ingredient is. What people care about is its flavor profile and with what ingredients it mixes well. Hell, even the government considers them vegetables. Face it. Your opinion on this matter is irrelevant.
Yes, I would actually like to cite precedent when forming my arguments. It seems like a reasonable way to do things. After all, if one are not arguing from precedent, one is simply pulling facts out of one's ass. The fact that some precedents are flawed is no excuse for throwing out all precedents. I genuinely can't believe that anybody would put forth such a fallacious argument so I'm just going to leave that one be. You obviously hadn't thought it through and now I'm thinking it through for you. You're welcome. Obviously you would never have been in danger of being burned. The facts that I laid before you, and which I will lay before you again, are that, culinarily speaking, a plant's biological purpose has nothing to do with how is is used in the kitchen. To argue that tomatoes and carrots are primarily found in sweet dishes or that pineapples and plums are normally found in savory dishes is to argue dishonestly. If you would make that argument, I would really see no point in replying to you. Citing aberrations only emphasizes the creativity of chefs and does nothing to change the culinary category under which something falls. Further, to call a pizza a "pizza pie" shows your ethnocentrism, as it is only a "pie" in English. Tomatoes are the ovaries of plants. Biologically speaking, ovaries are fruits. The point that I have been trying to make all along is that chefs, for the most part, really could give two shits what a particular ingredient's biological purpose is. Does it go well in a salad? Then it's probably a vegetable. Does it make a good dessert? Then it's probably a fruit. "But wait!" I can hear you thinking, "What about fruit salads?"
I just got done arguing with one.
P.S. Slashdot isn't a "tech site." It is a "news for nerds" site. If you would like the tech section, here's a handy link for you. A chef can be every bit as nerdy as a physicist and he doesn't even have to give a shit about science to do it.
Well, I suppose I could point out all the ways in which you are wrong, but it would be a lot easier to point out the fact that you clearly don't know what you are talking about. See, I'm not the one who initially made the determination that tomatoes are not traditionally eaten with the dessert course and are rather served with the main course of a meal. I'm not the one who put a tax on fruits and then didn't tax tomatoes because they are not, traditionally, fruits. (That one would be the US Supreme Court.) I am, however, just relaying facts as they are, and you are getting all pedantic and trying to split hairs and ultimately it makes no difference because, again, you clearly don't know what you are talking about. As stated above, botanically speaking tomatoes are, yes, fruits because of their biological function. However, completely separate from that issue and backed up by centuries of tradition (and the fact that they taste fucking disgusting in a pie) is the fact that any chef worth his salt - hell, anybody who has any clue how to find his way around a kitchen - would know better than to conflate the biological function with a part of a plant with its proper usage in a dish. Now, if you could find me a savory lemon or a bag of mixed nuts that didn't contain a single peanut, maybe I would be willing to concede that there is a one-to-one mapping between biological and culinary function, but I really doubt whether that's going to happen.
Botanically, as tomatoes are the ovary of the tomato plant, they are considered to be fruits. However, culinarily, as they are not sweet and are primarily used in savory dishes, tomatoes are considered to be vegetables. The upshot of this is that no matter what you call them, you are wrong. Thanks, science!
Yet another perfectly logical idea that will be ignored if we're lucky, mocked and derided and turned into a talking point if we're not, just because of the messenger. The fact that this comes from a high-profile democrat means that so-called conservatives throughout the US will dismiss the idea out of hand without paying it any thought, and will go on to turn it from a cheap and eminently viable way of conserving energy into a laughingstock through the sheer force of their ignorance. Don't believe me? What do you think of the notion of filling your tires up a little more to improve fuel efficiency?
So in essence what you are saying is that you refuse to read the justices' opinions in the recent decision, you refuse to read established case law, you refuse to accept the classification of video games as speech, and you support the expansion of government power over citizens at the expense of the taxpayer... yet somehow you expect me to believe that you are actually an ideological conservative who is capable of a rational discussion? I'm sorry but I have given you the benefit of the doubt for long enough. I'm done here.
To be honest, I see no more need to respond to your facile example than to respond to allegations that yelling "fire" in a crowded theater constitute free speech. Regardless of the numerous rulings that have taken place surrounding school speech and the protection thereof (and I suggest that you start reading with Bethel School District vs. Fraser in which justices found, for example, that
The role and purpose of the American public school system were well described by two historians, who stated: "[P]ublic education must prepare pupils for citizenship in the Republic. . . . It must inculcate the habits and manners of civility as values in themselves conducive to happiness and as indispensable to the practice of self-government in the community and the nation." C. Beard & M. Beard, New Basic History of the United States 228 (1968). In Ambach v. Norwick, 441 U.S. 68, 76 -77 (1979), we echoed the essence of this statement of the objectives of public education as the "inculcat[ion of] fundamental values necessary to the maintenance of a democratic political system."
) the protection of speech in school simply is not an applicable example. You keep looking at this as a ruling on a child's right to purchase video games. That is not an example of speech. What is considered speech, as was supported by the Supreme Court, is the publication of a video game. If you could tell me why video games should not be considered speech in the way that literature, movies, music, or any other type of media are, I suppose I might agree that the government would be within its mandate to regulate them. However, as the Supreme Court ruled that video games fall under the umbrella of speech, they are protected by the first amendment. Pushing all of that aside, however, you are still a shitty conservative for wanting to cede the rights of citizens to choose what type of media to consume to the government.
Firstly, "states' rights" refers to, and I quote, "[t]he powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States." As curtailing free speech, which includes production and publication of video games (as found in this case,) is expressly prohibited by the first amendment, I don't understand why you think that states' rights is even an applicable term here. Furthermore, to call yourself a conservative because you support gross expansion of the power of state government over the lives of the citizenry is so laughable on its face that I don't even know how to respond. Conservative vs. liberal is not simply a question of whether the federal government or the state government is the one creating laws limiting rights. Once again, I suggest that you look up the definition of a conservative. Pay attention to the concepts of limited government, personal liberty, and individual rights. Finally, the fact that you still have not picked up on the fact that this is less about the right of a child to purchase a video game and more about the fact that video games themselves are considered speech makes me think that you are too dense to understand this ruling of the supreme court, even though they explained themselves in simple language. Tell me, did you read the individual opinions? Did you even read excerpts? They explain themselves very plainly and in simple speech that even somebody like you should be able to understand.
Finally, pardon me for asking, but would you call yourself a Christian conservative? I'm just a little curious, that's all.
Slashdot Mirror
Verizon does.
Abrams is going to take Star Wars, remove all of the substance, and turn it into a bright-colored, flashy, plotless action movie devoid of all substance.
So basically Lucas' legacy is alive and well.
http://dailycurrant.com/2012/08/30/bill-nye-blasts-todd-akin-challenges-debate/
The Global Satirical Newspaper of Record
It's a good thing SOPA and PIPA passed, or else the government would be powerless to stop this kind of criminal activity.
As a related aside - can anyone tell me if there's a way to get google to recognize you as country-agnostic? I still get localized information when I go there, even not signed on. I'd love to know if there were a way to get around that, so I get all the search results from every part of the globe....
Try Duck Duck Go, which is a very simple search engine along the lines of what Google used to be. They proudly proclaim the fact that they neither track you nor alter your search results based on your location or history.
To be honest, if on-the-job training results in an inability to write legible English, I'll stick with college.
What could possibly be more incriminating than the chief lobbyist for the MPAA openly threatening politicians who don't vote the way he would prefer? Let's face it, no amount of damning evidence is going to get the general populace to care.
This doesn't require an officer or a police car - it is a cheap piece of equipment that can be produced and purchased in large quantities. The only limit to the ability of the police to surveil the citizenry would be limited only by the procurement budget, and would be far less limited than it is today. Further, these devices are easily concealed, whereas a police car, even an unmarked one, is far harder to hide. Essentially these devices give the police nigh-infinite, limitless, covert surveillance capabilities.
Does it hurt to be that stupid?
You cant agree to give up the right to sue or the right to a class action suit.
The United States Supreme Court begs to differ.
hahahahahahaha
Well, I didn't say that you had the reading skills of a five-year-old, but as you just demonstrated that you do, I'll let that claim stand. I have already successfully dismantled each and every one of the points in your post. I wasn't sure about it - I had actually started rebutting some of them - but then I realized that I had, indeed, already answered every single one of those points. Go ahead and check if you don't believe me. At this point you're arguing in circles and chalking my unwillingness to bow to your refusal to face the facts to... male stupidity? Astounding. Truly astounding. It seems fairly obvious that you just Can't Understand Normal Thinking. I think my work here is done.
Botanically tomatoes are fruits - I have never argued this, and it is in fact part of the point that I initially raised - but here are just a few sources that back me up. As you can see, legally and culinarily speaking, there are a whole hell of a lot of people who consider a tomato a vegetable. This is a fact. This is inarguable. All of your "technically"s aren't going to change this. This is the point that I initially made, this is the point that I have continued to make, and this is the point that you have continued to deny in the face of overwhelming evidence. My ego is not particularly connected to what people think of tomatoes. Maybe you, on the other hand, should consider why yours is so connected to putting on blinders and denying simple facts as they are.
Walk into any restaurant today and ask for a fruit salad. Tell me how many serve you one that contains tomatoes and cucumbers.
The simple fact is that enough people calling a tomato a vegetable does, for all intents and purposes, mean that a tomato is considered a vegetable. You know why? Because of the point that I keep bringing up: nobody gives a flying fuck about the biological function of a piece of food. A word's meaning is whatever people make it; that's the way language works. If eaters, who vastly outnumber botanists, want to call tomatoes a vegetable, who are you to tell them that they are wrong? You're tilting at windmills. You can sit in your lab all day and wax scientific about how fruits are ovaries and that is just wonderful for you, but the simple fact is that when a chef asks you to hand him some vegetables he sure as shit means those cucumbers and tomatoes and peppers sitting right there, and when the people in the restaurant order grilled vegetables that is exactly what they expect. No amount of hooting about the deficit (wtf?) is going to change the fact that you're clearly a terrible cook.
I can see I won't get through to you, most likely because you are being deliberately obtuse through obstinacy. Congratulations, you have the arguing skills of a five year old. On reading this, I fully expect you to put your hands on your hips and pout.
Repeat after me: Culinarily speaking, nobody gives a shit what the biological function of an ingredient is. What people care about is its flavor profile and with what ingredients it mixes well.
Hell, even the government considers them vegetables. Face it. Your opinion on this matter is irrelevant.
My mistake. Here is your link.
Yes, I would actually like to cite precedent when forming my arguments. It seems like a reasonable way to do things. After all, if one are not arguing from precedent, one is simply pulling facts out of one's ass.
The fact that some precedents are flawed is no excuse for throwing out all precedents. I genuinely can't believe that anybody would put forth such a fallacious argument so I'm just going to leave that one be. You obviously hadn't thought it through and now I'm thinking it through for you. You're welcome. Obviously you would never have been in danger of being burned.
The facts that I laid before you, and which I will lay before you again, are that, culinarily speaking, a plant's biological purpose has nothing to do with how is is used in the kitchen. To argue that tomatoes and carrots are primarily found in sweet dishes or that pineapples and plums are normally found in savory dishes is to argue dishonestly. If you would make that argument, I would really see no point in replying to you. Citing aberrations only emphasizes the creativity of chefs and does nothing to change the culinary category under which something falls. Further, to call a pizza a "pizza pie" shows your ethnocentrism, as it is only a "pie" in English.
Tomatoes are the ovaries of plants. Biologically speaking, ovaries are fruits. The point that I have been trying to make all along is that chefs, for the most part, really could give two shits what a particular ingredient's biological purpose is. Does it go well in a salad? Then it's probably a vegetable. Does it make a good dessert? Then it's probably a fruit. "But wait!" I can hear you thinking, "What about fruit salads?"
I just got done arguing with one.
P.S. Slashdot isn't a "tech site." It is a "news for nerds" site. If you would like the tech section, here's a handy link for you. A chef can be every bit as nerdy as a physicist and he doesn't even have to give a shit about science to do it.
Well, I suppose I could point out all the ways in which you are wrong, but it would be a lot easier to point out the fact that you clearly don't know what you are talking about. See, I'm not the one who initially made the determination that tomatoes are not traditionally eaten with the dessert course and are rather served with the main course of a meal. I'm not the one who put a tax on fruits and then didn't tax tomatoes because they are not, traditionally, fruits. (That one would be the US Supreme Court.) I am, however, just relaying facts as they are, and you are getting all pedantic and trying to split hairs and ultimately it makes no difference because, again, you clearly don't know what you are talking about. As stated above, botanically speaking tomatoes are, yes, fruits because of their biological function. However, completely separate from that issue and backed up by centuries of tradition (and the fact that they taste fucking disgusting in a pie) is the fact that any chef worth his salt - hell, anybody who has any clue how to find his way around a kitchen - would know better than to conflate the biological function with a part of a plant with its proper usage in a dish. Now, if you could find me a savory lemon or a bag of mixed nuts that didn't contain a single peanut, maybe I would be willing to concede that there is a one-to-one mapping between biological and culinary function, but I really doubt whether that's going to happen.
Botanically, as tomatoes are the ovary of the tomato plant, they are considered to be fruits. However, culinarily, as they are not sweet and are primarily used in savory dishes, tomatoes are considered to be vegetables. The upshot of this is that no matter what you call them, you are wrong. Thanks, science!
Data Furnaces would be micro data furnaces in residential areas
And each micro data furnace would be nano data furnaces, which would be even smaller data furnaces still. It's data furnaces all the way down.
Yes. He called it Chain World.
Yet another perfectly logical idea that will be ignored if we're lucky, mocked and derided and turned into a talking point if we're not, just because of the messenger. The fact that this comes from a high-profile democrat means that so-called conservatives throughout the US will dismiss the idea out of hand without paying it any thought, and will go on to turn it from a cheap and eminently viable way of conserving energy into a laughingstock through the sheer force of their ignorance.
Don't believe me? What do you think of the notion of filling your tires up a little more to improve fuel efficiency?
So in essence what you are saying is that you refuse to read the justices' opinions in the recent decision, you refuse to read established case law, you refuse to accept the classification of video games as speech, and you support the expansion of government power over citizens at the expense of the taxpayer... yet somehow you expect me to believe that you are actually an ideological conservative who is capable of a rational discussion? I'm sorry but I have given you the benefit of the doubt for long enough. I'm done here.
The role and purpose of the American public school system were well described by two historians, who stated: "[P]ublic education must prepare pupils for citizenship in the Republic. . . . It must inculcate the habits and manners of civility as values in themselves conducive to happiness and as indispensable to the practice of self-government in the community and the nation." C. Beard & M. Beard, New Basic History of the United States 228 (1968). In Ambach v. Norwick, 441 U.S. 68, 76 -77 (1979), we echoed the essence of this statement of the objectives of public education as the "inculcat[ion of] fundamental values necessary to the maintenance of a democratic political system."
) the protection of speech in school simply is not an applicable example. You keep looking at this as a ruling on a child's right to purchase video games. That is not an example of speech. What is considered speech, as was supported by the Supreme Court, is the publication of a video game. If you could tell me why video games should not be considered speech in the way that literature, movies, music, or any other type of media are, I suppose I might agree that the government would be within its mandate to regulate them. However, as the Supreme Court ruled that video games fall under the umbrella of speech, they are protected by the first amendment. Pushing all of that aside, however, you are still a shitty conservative for wanting to cede the rights of citizens to choose what type of media to consume to the government.
Firstly, "states' rights" refers to, and I quote, "[t]he powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States." As curtailing free speech, which includes production and publication of video games (as found in this case,) is expressly prohibited by the first amendment, I don't understand why you think that states' rights is even an applicable term here. Furthermore, to call yourself a conservative because you support gross expansion of the power of state government over the lives of the citizenry is so laughable on its face that I don't even know how to respond. Conservative vs. liberal is not simply a question of whether the federal government or the state government is the one creating laws limiting rights. Once again, I suggest that you look up the definition of a conservative. Pay attention to the concepts of limited government, personal liberty, and individual rights. Finally, the fact that you still have not picked up on the fact that this is less about the right of a child to purchase a video game and more about the fact that video games themselves are considered speech makes me think that you are too dense to understand this ruling of the supreme court, even though they explained themselves in simple language. Tell me, did you read the individual opinions? Did you even read excerpts? They explain themselves very plainly and in simple speech that even somebody like you should be able to understand.
Finally, pardon me for asking, but would you call yourself a Christian conservative? I'm just a little curious, that's all.