Beer out of my nose I laughed so hard at the thought. Why in THE HELL would anyone want to do this?
Next up: How to put a 4-cylinder engine in your corvette.
I agree with you, "freedom is not safe", and "...better to die Free than to live under tyranny". Having said that, I'm concerned about political thought that clings to the founding fathers as sancrosanct or near divine. The founding fathers did what they did as a response to the the situation at the time. Some concepts are good and should be clung to... Some concepts don't necessarily stand the test of time. Doesn't make them bad, makes them outdated, that's all. For example, the right to bear arms. That was done to allow a militia to be formed to fight government if it gets too tyrranical. Made sense back then. Now, there's no way a private group could compete with the US Military. I'm not saying the right to bear arms is right or wrong, I'm saying clinging to the founding father's reasoning behind it is futile.
This is a hot button for me. Everyone seems so concerned over making new laws to meet technology changes, but fundamentally, it's the message, not the media.
An adult luring a girl for innapropriate contact should be a crime, regardless if the communication were done electronically, on paper, or via smoke signals. Making a law that is focused on the media of a message is ridiculous. It's the message itself that is the problem.
If someone shows you an inappropriate picture of a child on a paper photograph, you don't go sue Kodak for the technology for printing the picture. It's the photographer and the distributor of the picture who are the criminals...
Why is that so difficult to understand?
I think body temperature is mostly a function of internal function, not external temperature. Dropping your thermostat in your house a couple degrees won't make you live longer, just make you work harder keeping your body at your normal body temp.
I have a (mild) background in statistical analysis, and I can tell you that looking at the last 100-150 years of weather data and concluding crisis is not very sound. the earth's been around for 4 billions years, and with that domain, looking at 100 years and making conclusions is like looking at a handful of sand and concluding beach erosion.
We know from geology that the climate goes through large cycles, and the last 100 years is only a small part of whatever cycle we're in.
I'm not refuting that air pollution could be impacting the climate and atmosphere, I'm just refuting that looking at our very small sample of historical data is not a sound basis for analysis.
I'd like a full set of vi commands for the web.:wq (save as bookmark and exit)
ZZ (here comes the boss, kill the porn):set nu (add line numbers to page):set list (same as view source)
/
n next search term
p previous search term
Slashdot Mirror
Beer out of my nose I laughed so hard at the thought. Why in THE HELL would anyone want to do this? Next up: How to put a 4-cylinder engine in your corvette.
I agree with you, "freedom is not safe", and "...better to die Free than to live under tyranny". Having said that, I'm concerned about political thought that clings to the founding fathers as sancrosanct or near divine. The founding fathers did what they did as a response to the the situation at the time. Some concepts are good and should be clung to... Some concepts don't necessarily stand the test of time. Doesn't make them bad, makes them outdated, that's all. For example, the right to bear arms. That was done to allow a militia to be formed to fight government if it gets too tyrranical. Made sense back then. Now, there's no way a private group could compete with the US Military. I'm not saying the right to bear arms is right or wrong, I'm saying clinging to the founding father's reasoning behind it is futile.
This is a hot button for me. Everyone seems so concerned over making new laws to meet technology changes, but fundamentally, it's the message, not the media. An adult luring a girl for innapropriate contact should be a crime, regardless if the communication were done electronically, on paper, or via smoke signals. Making a law that is focused on the media of a message is ridiculous. It's the message itself that is the problem. If someone shows you an inappropriate picture of a child on a paper photograph, you don't go sue Kodak for the technology for printing the picture. It's the photographer and the distributor of the picture who are the criminals... Why is that so difficult to understand?
I think body temperature is mostly a function of internal function, not external temperature. Dropping your thermostat in your house a couple degrees won't make you live longer, just make you work harder keeping your body at your normal body temp.
I have a (mild) background in statistical analysis, and I can tell you that looking at the last 100-150 years of weather data and concluding crisis is not very sound. the earth's been around for 4 billions years, and with that domain, looking at 100 years and making conclusions is like looking at a handful of sand and concluding beach erosion. We know from geology that the climate goes through large cycles, and the last 100 years is only a small part of whatever cycle we're in. I'm not refuting that air pollution could be impacting the climate and atmosphere, I'm just refuting that looking at our very small sample of historical data is not a sound basis for analysis.
I'd like a full set of vi commands for the web. :wq (save as bookmark and exit)
ZZ (here comes the boss, kill the porn) :set nu (add line numbers to page) :set list (same as view source)
/
n next search term
p previous search term
Will that be +R -R +RW -RW -RAM or what?