Unfortunately, I don't bother checking replies on Slashdot anymore, unless absolutely necessary. I don't use the new discussion system, and, with the changes they've made recently, it's impossible to tell which posts belong to which parent.
I'm merely pointing out how illogically retarded you are. I never said I agree or disagree about anything. But why are you making the assumption that I'm a "sex-starved misogynist geek?" Maybe I am, and maybe I'm not. Maybe I'm one or two of those things but not the other(s). Are you capable of reasoning whatever?
And you say it like there's something wrong with misogyny. Is there? Is it because your wife said so?
That's because you're stupid. You might be able to block well known proxy sites by IP address, or block the website URLs through a transparent proxy and/or block the DNS for them. Doesn't stop you from scanning from a remote server and keeping a local copy. They can't just black every address or port, either. HTTP is pretty much one that will always be there, and, unless they're doing deep packet inspection, there's not much to stop that. As far as VPNs go, they are encrypted traffic. You can't identify encrypted traffic except by the presence of perhaps more randomness than is usually there. They will see traffic, but they have no idea what it is. And, as another poster said, it is pretty hard to reset a UDP VPN. UDP is a connectionless protocol, and projects like OpenVPN take advantage of its nature for that, as well as its speed.
I think by that quote he meant inference. It is true, though, that "god" isn't even inferred that often in the text of the constitution. As far as amending the constitution goes... so? What's wrong with that? I don't get it. Doesn't that mean he's for the constitution?
I can't say on the We the People Act. I don't know anything about it, but I will look it up. You probably should, too, as well as his reasons for introducing and/or supporting it (these things are not always the same).
Wants to wall off the country? Based on what evidence? He voted for the fence act [1], but not for reasons of the fence [2]. Deport millions? I'm not so sure about that. He doesn't have anything against illegal immigrants, from what I can see, but I wonder what you have FOR THEM? They broke our laws, and you're crying that they might be deported?
Personally, I don't have a problem with immigration. These people have come here illegally, though, breaking our laws, and we cannot afford to support them. We give them money; we subsidize them. He wants to get rid of the incentives for this [3]. He has said multiple times that he would welcome immigrants, legal or not, if our country were ever in a position of real economic health. It isn't.
Let states ban abortions? Yeah, or allow them. It isn't up to the federal government to decide that one way or the other.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Like another poster said, this is a rather divisive issue. Why should you be mandating for the entire country, when we're a federation of states? Not that I necessarily am in total agreement with him on this point, but I don't see why you think it's so horrible (if you do think that). It certainly isn't a point of contention enough for me to not vote for him. It's following the cosntitution, and it's allowing liberty in the way this country was designed. You can't be serious.
I know this is strictly about Ron Paul, but I can't believe how many people dismiss his candidacy out of and go embracing Obama or Clinton for NO APPARENT REASON. Ron Paul has a few things about him you don't like, so you're going to vote for someone else, who probably has a lot more things you wouldn't like about them if you took the time to research them with the same intensity? What the hell have Obama or Clinton ever done? Nothing. They sure have said lots of the things -- maybe some that you like -- but when the hell have they ever voted that way? Both of them voted for funding the Iraq war. Clinton voted to go to war. Both of them say they don't support the war, yet they were still funding it up until late 2007. What? At the very least, you can bet that Ron Paul has voted for what he's said he would, and that he'll most likely continue to do that if he goes back to congress, or to uphold those principles as best he can as president.
You can do WHOIS from the command line (with whois, fwhois, or telnet 43). It seems they are not using domains checked this way for their "anti-domain tasting" practices. Yes, you can do a DNS request to see whether a record exists in the root-servers for a domain name. It is usually a requirement that you provide them with DNS servers when registering a domain name. However, under various circumstances, DNS records might not exist.
That's no matter. If a record for the domain does not exist, the root-server will return NXDOMAIN.
I'm not sure what your problem is. it's very simple. you are cherry-picking entries from your dictionary and then using it to support your claim. the sad thing is, though, that, even if you're right (and you're not; it's debated, as the resources I linked outline rather clearly), it still doesn't support your claim.
let's assume you are right about all of your silly definitions. so an atheist is "without god." what does that have to do with either belief, disbelief, or lack of belief? what does that have to do with atheism claiming "there is no god" (your words)? if you can tell me that, then you're the best spinster in history (or perhaps a lawyer). you behave like a conspiracy theorist, stringing together disparate "facts" to make it seem like you're saying something (when you aren't).
and taking all of that into account, my original point stands: most people who identify as atheists seem to subscribe to a weaker form, so even if you're right about everything in history and you're Noah Webster, himself, you're being dishonest. I really doubt that there are very many people who are strong atheists. I'd love to see some evidence either way.
I'd say it's faith, since there's no past evidence of the sun ever "rising" anywhere. was that the trap?
if we reword the question so it has to be answered the way intended, though, then I think it turns out to be an issue of semantics. I wouldn't call it faith, but I'm not sure I'd call it a fact either, since everyone knows you can't 'prove' anything. but I would say it is very, very, very probable, to the point that we can accept it as fact for all intents and purposes.
you're very sure of yourself, but, perhaps instead of assuming you know what you're talking about, you should put some weight into the thoughts of others, and do some research, as well.
from a dictionary, it appears you're cherry picking:
it's also rather evident your 'definition' which supposedly "fact" is blatantly wrong. you might define it like that, but you shouldn't expect anyone else to understand you when you try to use words in your own special way. several of the dictionaries seem to disagree on the extent to which atheism extends its negativity, but wikipedia should be of help:
it means disbelief in god or gods. that's nothing to do with belief that gods don't exist. I'm not sure how "without god" says anything conclusively about that.
1. atheism isn't a religion 2. atheism doesn't hinge on something that can't be proven
a religion is a system of belief surrounding a deity. as far as I know, atheism is about the lack of belief in a deity or deities. also, as far as I know, atheism does not claim there is no god. perhaps you meant "strong atheism," to which there are virtually no adherents, I'm guessing.
And as for your other points, Kucinich has him beat, also. He was the ONLY candidate there to vote against the patriot act both times. Paul abstained from one.
Wouldn't say that. Abstaining from a vote is probably the best thing you can do when rushed legislation is introduced and you don't have time to research it.
I'm not even reading that. I stopped reading it at about the third or fourth sentence, if the shit you write can be called sentences.
I haven't once attacked your faith to this point. But now I'm going to. Your faith is that you know what my intentions are. And your belief is that I'm not worthy of your time because you have faith that my intentions are whatever it is you think they are and that means I'm a bad person or something. And that's just as fucking idiotic as any religious faith you probably have.
You are the worst troll ever, or you are seriously insecure. Just fuck off and die. Do you HONESTLY think you've "got me trapped" or whatever it is you're going on about? You are so unbelievably deluded. Look, you stupid piece of shit, you "don't want to have a discussion with trolls" or whatever the hell but you've managed to spent 100 days writing stupid, illogical crap to justify why you don't have to or don't want to reply to me. What the fuck?
Okay, I TOTALLY LIED ABOUT EVERYTHING AND I'M THE WORST PERSON IN THE WORLD?!!??! ARE YOU HAPPY NOW? Seriously, get a fucking grip. Can I get an answer to my original question now? You really don't want to get into a serious argument with me. I mean I've been doing the whole "oh I caught you," word-twisting, grammatical error-correcting shit for DECADES. Honestly. But I'm not fucking twelve anymore. Maybe I got lazy, but what the hell is YOUR excuse?
Oh, please. You think I didn't know you were going to look through my comments and find that and somehow "use it against me" 5000 days before you did? I've been posting in forums for years. I'm sure I'm a lot more experienced in these types of discussions than you are, and I've seen it all. The reason I didn't bother "covering up" that post? Because it has nothing to do with the post I made in response to you, and because I really don't give a shit about appeasing the sensibilities of some stupid holier-than-thou asshole who thinks he can just dismiss me out of hand because I'm not good enough for real argument.
I didn't lie. You didn't "catch me on anything," and I'm hardly pissed. I just said I never claimed to have said that there's no rationality to religious arguments or whatever. That you read into what you want ("you've never said that in your entire life, ever") doesn't really mean much to me. I think it's pretty obvious what I intended. I don't usually expect NORMAL people to go around reading every discussion I've ever had before dignifying a question I ask them, in all sincerity, with a response.
Besides that: so what if I did lie? It has nothing to do with my question or my post. I'd just like an answer. I never said I don't think religious belief is irrational; I just said I didn't claim it in my post, and I didn't. So maybe I do happen to think it irrational. Does that preclude me from being deserving of your grace or whatever the fuck? Seriously; I just want to know how you argue that. Jerk.
Your post boils down to: I can't believe you're serious, because I don't want you to be, and, as a result, I don't have to respond to you with anything resembling substance.
I never said any such thing. You are being irrational, on the other hand, for injecting that into my comment. If it's so simple, then by all means, indulge me. I was being sincere as possible. I would really like to know how you reconcile those two things.
Slashdot Mirror
The Day the Earth Stood Still was already a bad enough adaptation of the short story. This will be an abomination.
There is. I never said I was trying to make a connection between the two; I was only giving helpful (or unhelpful, as you may decide) input.
Unfortunately, I don't bother checking replies on Slashdot anymore, unless absolutely necessary. I don't use the new discussion system, and, with the changes they've made recently, it's impossible to tell which posts belong to which parent.
its; who; people's
Mitt Romney. Ok, so you probably haven't met him. Well, don't meet him, or you're going to mess your statistics up (I hope).
I'm merely pointing out how illogically retarded you are. I never said I agree or disagree about anything. But why are you making the assumption that I'm a "sex-starved misogynist geek?" Maybe I am, and maybe I'm not. Maybe I'm one or two of those things but not the other(s). Are you capable of reasoning whatever?
And you say it like there's something wrong with misogyny. Is there? Is it because your wife said so?
I would be comfortable calling someone a nigger, and I would be quite incorrectly called a "racist" solely because I did.
It's certainly not an idiom. Arguably an axiom or a maxim (I won't give my thoughts), but not an idiom.
That's because you're stupid. You might be able to block well known proxy sites by IP address, or block the website URLs through a transparent proxy and/or block the DNS for them. Doesn't stop you from scanning from a remote server and keeping a local copy. They can't just black every address or port, either. HTTP is pretty much one that will always be there, and, unless they're doing deep packet inspection, there's not much to stop that. As far as VPNs go, they are encrypted traffic. You can't identify encrypted traffic except by the presence of perhaps more randomness than is usually there. They will see traffic, but they have no idea what it is. And, as another poster said, it is pretty hard to reset a UDP VPN. UDP is a connectionless protocol, and projects like OpenVPN take advantage of its nature for that, as well as its speed.
I have a dog that can say the words "you're stupid." Dogs are hardly unable to talk.
My dog says you're stupid.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor
I think by that quote he meant inference. It is true, though, that "god" isn't even inferred that often in the text of the constitution. As far as amending the constitution goes... so? What's wrong with that? I don't get it. Doesn't that mean he's for the constitution?
I can't say on the We the People Act. I don't know anything about it, but I will look it up. You probably should, too, as well as his reasons for introducing and/or supporting it (these things are not always the same).
Personally, I don't have a problem with immigration. These people have come here illegally, though, breaking our laws, and we cannot afford to support them. We give them money; we subsidize them. He wants to get rid of the incentives for this [3]. He has said multiple times that he would welcome immigrants, legal or not, if our country were ever in a position of real economic health. It isn't.
Let states ban abortions? Yeah, or allow them. It isn't up to the federal government to decide that one way or the other.
Like another poster said, this is a rather divisive issue. Why should you be mandating for the entire country, when we're a federation of states? Not that I necessarily am in total agreement with him on this point, but I don't see why you think it's so horrible (if you do think that). It certainly isn't a point of contention enough for me to not vote for him. It's following the cosntitution, and it's allowing liberty in the way this country was designed. You can't be serious.
I know this is strictly about Ron Paul, but I can't believe how many people dismiss his candidacy out of and go embracing Obama or Clinton for NO APPARENT REASON. Ron Paul has a few things about him you don't like, so you're going to vote for someone else, who probably has a lot more things you wouldn't like about them if you took the time to research them with the same intensity?
What the hell have Obama or Clinton ever done? Nothing. They sure have said lots of the things -- maybe some that you like -- but when the hell have they ever voted that way? Both of them voted for funding the Iraq war. Clinton voted to go to war. Both of them say they don't support the war, yet they were still funding it up until late 2007. What? At the very least, you can bet that Ron Paul has voted for what he's said he would, and that he'll most likely continue to do that if he goes back to congress, or to uphold those principles as best he can as president.
1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_ron_paul#Borders_and_immigration
2: http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul_Immigration.htm
3: http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/border-security-and-immigration-reform/
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
Those things you mention are a form of safety. You make no sense to me whatever.
You can do WHOIS from the command line (with whois, fwhois, or telnet 43). It seems they are not using domains checked this way for their "anti-domain tasting" practices. Yes, you can do a DNS request to see whether a record exists in the root-servers for a domain name. It is usually a requirement that you provide them with DNS servers when registering a domain name. However, under various circumstances, DNS records might not exist.
That's no matter. If a record for the domain does not exist, the root-server will return NXDOMAIN.
I'm not sure what your problem is. it's very simple. you are cherry-picking entries from your dictionary and then using it to support your claim. the sad thing is, though, that, even if you're right (and you're not; it's debated, as the resources I linked outline rather clearly), it still doesn't support your claim.
let's assume you are right about all of your silly definitions. so an atheist is "without god." what does that have to do with either belief, disbelief, or lack of belief? what does that have to do with atheism claiming "there is no god" (your words)? if you can tell me that, then you're the best spinster in history (or perhaps a lawyer). you behave like a conspiracy theorist, stringing together disparate "facts" to make it seem like you're saying something (when you aren't).
and taking all of that into account, my original point stands: most people who identify as atheists seem to subscribe to a weaker form, so even if you're right about everything in history and you're Noah Webster, himself, you're being dishonest. I really doubt that there are very many people who are strong atheists. I'd love to see some evidence either way.
I'd say it's faith, since there's no past evidence of the sun ever "rising" anywhere. was that the trap?
if we reword the question so it has to be answered the way intended, though, then I think it turns out to be an issue of semantics. I wouldn't call it faith, but I'm not sure I'd call it a fact either, since everyone knows you can't 'prove' anything. but I would say it is very, very, very probable, to the point that we can accept it as fact for all intents and purposes.
you're very sure of yourself, but, perhaps instead of assuming you know what you're talking about, you should put some weight into the thoughts of others, and do some research, as well.
from a dictionary, it appears you're cherry picking:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism
it's also rather evident your 'definition' which supposedly "fact" is blatantly wrong. you might define it like that, but you shouldn't expect anyone else to understand you when you try to use words in your own special way. several of the dictionaries seem to disagree on the extent to which atheism extends its negativity, but wikipedia should be of help:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Definitions_and_distinctions
it means disbelief in god or gods. that's nothing to do with belief that gods don't exist. I'm not sure how "without god" says anything conclusively about that.
well, there are two problems with that:
1. atheism isn't a religion
2. atheism doesn't hinge on something that can't be proven
a religion is a system of belief surrounding a deity. as far as I know, atheism is about the lack of belief in a deity or deities.
also, as far as I know, atheism does not claim there is no god. perhaps you meant "strong atheism," to which there are virtually no adherents, I'm guessing.
why buy an original artwork when you can download a bitmap of it on google images?
(semi-serious question! no, I wouldn't buy an antique game console or piece of art. what the hell is wrong with those people?)
I'm not even reading that. I stopped reading it at about the third or fourth sentence, if the shit you write can be called sentences.
I haven't once attacked your faith to this point. But now I'm going to. Your faith is that you know what my intentions are. And your belief is that I'm not worthy of your time because you have faith that my intentions are whatever it is you think they are and that means I'm a bad person or something. And that's just as fucking idiotic as any religious faith you probably have.
You are the worst troll ever, or you are seriously insecure. Just fuck off and die. Do you HONESTLY think you've "got me trapped" or whatever it is you're going on about? You are so unbelievably deluded. Look, you stupid piece of shit, you "don't want to have a discussion with trolls" or whatever the hell but you've managed to spent 100 days writing stupid, illogical crap to justify why you don't have to or don't want to reply to me. What the fuck?
Okay, I TOTALLY LIED ABOUT EVERYTHING AND I'M THE WORST PERSON IN THE WORLD?!!??! ARE YOU HAPPY NOW? Seriously, get a fucking grip. Can I get an answer to my original question now? You really don't want to get into a serious argument with me. I mean I've been doing the whole "oh I caught you," word-twisting, grammatical error-correcting shit for DECADES. Honestly. But I'm not fucking twelve anymore. Maybe I got lazy, but what the hell is YOUR excuse?
Oh, please. You think I didn't know you were going to look through my comments and find that and somehow "use it against me" 5000 days before you did? I've been posting in forums for years. I'm sure I'm a lot more experienced in these types of discussions than you are, and I've seen it all. The reason I didn't bother "covering up" that post? Because it has nothing to do with the post I made in response to you, and because I really don't give a shit about appeasing the sensibilities of some stupid holier-than-thou asshole who thinks he can just dismiss me out of hand because I'm not good enough for real argument.
I didn't lie. You didn't "catch me on anything," and I'm hardly pissed. I just said I never claimed to have said that there's no rationality to religious arguments or whatever. That you read into what you want ("you've never said that in your entire life, ever") doesn't really mean much to me. I think it's pretty obvious what I intended. I don't usually expect NORMAL people to go around reading every discussion I've ever had before dignifying a question I ask them, in all sincerity, with a response.
Besides that: so what if I did lie? It has nothing to do with my question or my post. I'd just like an answer. I never said I don't think religious belief is irrational; I just said I didn't claim it in my post, and I didn't. So maybe I do happen to think it irrational. Does that preclude me from being deserving of your grace or whatever the fuck? Seriously; I just want to know how you argue that. Jerk.
Your post boils down to: I can't believe you're serious, because I don't want you to be, and, as a result, I don't have to respond to you with anything resembling substance.
Great. Fuck you.
I never said any such thing. You are being irrational, on the other hand, for injecting that into my comment. If it's so simple, then by all means, indulge me. I was being sincere as possible. I would really like to know how you reconcile those two things.