What I find interesting is that Chris Metzen, Blizzard's senior VP of creative development and writer for much of the Warcraft universe is listed as a co-producer of the movie.
Metzen is the chief Loremaster at Blizzard, I'd be amazed if he wasn't closely involved.
Treating all claims as equally worthy of consideration is just plain silliness.
Most agnostics don't do that though. Personally I feel neither the claims of atheists nor the claims of theists are worthy of any consideration whatsoever. Nobody can prove A, nobody can prove B, therefore I have no interest in arguments by either side.
If it helps, don't think of agnosticism as a middle ground between the states we call "religion" and "atheism." Think of it as a middle ground between the processes of "reasoning" and "faith."
You forgot the majority of people who are agnostic, those who don't think of it as a middle ground at all. You're on one side with the theists in actually caring one way or the other, we're on the other in the "Don't give a shit" camp wishing both you and them would just shut up.
Granted, with a sufficiently large sample size you could perhaps figure out the odds of a hammer person being a psychopath vs a chainsaw person. But this just isn't how the test is used, from what I've read
As the Lead Designer of the PC game Majesty explained to me the technical term is called "Dead Time."
It's recommended that you get up and walk about for 5 minutes every hour, WoW flight paths encourage this as people go grab a drink and whatnot during the flight.
Not sure if you are joking or not, but 1 foot is exactly.3048 meters, because 1inch is exactly 2.54 centimeters.
Unless you are using U.S. survey feet which is 1200 / 3937 meters, approx. 0.3048006 meters. This actually comes up alot in GIS and mapping because of the use of survey feet in older state plane coordinate systems.
If you were converting to SI you wouldn't be using US Survey feet, you'd be using SI feet.
2. Where does the Bill of Rights say "This only applies to citizens"?
It doesn't (I think) but everything has an area of jurisdiction.
The 14th amendment to your constitution clearly distinguishes between citizens and persons and says "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. ". Seems pretty clear to me.
I'm not interested in what places that used to be monarchies that retain that label. If the king/queen doesn't have ruling power then they're no longer monarchs and some other form of government (or anarchy) is present. A constitutional democracy with a person called "king" who is required to do some ceremonial duties and wields no power isn't a monarchy.
In the UK the Queen can refuse royal assent to a bill, she is the last line of defence for the people against a corrupt government. Most monarchs are not just titular, even in constitutional monarchies.
On the 5th of January it was announced he had a minor hormonal imbalance, on the 14th it was announced that things had become more complex and Jobs was taking extended leave with no elaboration given.
On the 5th the diagnosis was hormonal imbalance caused by nutritional issues, between then and the 14th that diagnosis changed. Everyone with more than 2 brain cells worked that out, they just weren't told until now exactly what had changed.
For all those against socialised health care, this guy's experience is why you're wrong and will always be wrong. No civilised country would permit this.
I just hope people realise that neither system is perfect and going to free healthcare will not solve everyone's problems.
I'm in the UK and have private healthcare cover as part of my job package. If I have a heart attack I get top quality free emergency care from the NHS. If I get cancer I get top quality expensive cancer drugs from my private cover. There is nothing stopping you from also taking out private healthcare cover for the things the NHS can't afford, anyone pretending otherwise is trying to fudge the argument.
Amtrak run by the states lost 6 billion dollars.
Private companies fail when there are too many government intervention (e.g. fannie mae and freddie mac)
And businesses that are fundamentally unprofitable (like railways) are best run by the state.
BT have a Heavy User package (£20.54pcm) that contains the following as part of it's description...
Downloading 3,333 music files, 26 videos or streaming 40 hours of iPlayer every month
If you can't afford to provide it then don't advertise it, fuckwits. Manage your customer's expectations properly and stop making promises you can't keep, it's a much more sustainable business model.
Continental Flight 3407 did get down in one piece. The more accurate version should be: "Whatever gets the aircraft down safely is what I want managing the control surfaces."
A good landing is one you walk away from, a great landing is one where you get to use the plane again.
I not only have an S3 Virge in my drawer but it saw action a couple of years ago when a mate accidentally flashed his expensive ATI card with a blank firmware:)
In, for example, Germany churches can collect taxes on their members. If you declare yourself to be a member of the Roman Catholic church then your employer will deduct your church tax at source. If you remove yourself from the church you stop paying the tax. The tax is not levied by the government, it's levied by your church and optionally collected by the government on their behalf (for a fee). If your church chooses not to tax it's congregation then it is free to do so, just as you are free to declare yourself not a member of the church any more if you don't want to pay their tax.
So no, the politicians have nothing to do with it and it's not something you're forced to do.
Slashdot Mirror
"Troll" for a factual post is a tad harsh.
What I find interesting is that Chris Metzen, Blizzard's senior VP of creative development and writer for much of the Warcraft universe is listed as a co-producer of the movie.
Metzen is the chief Loremaster at Blizzard, I'd be amazed if he wasn't closely involved.
Which is an attitude that, if widespread enough, would allow religious people to undermine the very foundations of the Enlightenment.
No it wouldn't, we're not listening to them. They are utterly insignificant to my world view as are atheists, I file both under "meaningless blather".
Treating all claims as equally worthy of consideration is just plain silliness.
Most agnostics don't do that though. Personally I feel neither the claims of atheists nor the claims of theists are worthy of any consideration whatsoever. Nobody can prove A, nobody can prove B, therefore I have no interest in arguments by either side.
If it helps, don't think of agnosticism as a middle ground between the states we call "religion" and "atheism." Think of it as a middle ground between the processes of "reasoning" and "faith."
You forgot the majority of people who are agnostic, those who don't think of it as a middle ground at all. You're on one side with the theists in actually caring one way or the other, we're on the other in the "Don't give a shit" camp wishing both you and them would just shut up.
Granted, with a sufficiently large sample size you could perhaps figure out the odds of a hammer person being a psychopath vs a chainsaw person. But this just isn't how the test is used, from what I've read
That's precisely how the test is used.
Any balanced sample of the population would be skewed towards mediocrity, that's kind of what mediocre means.
People don't talk about I82 around me though, it's filed with Blues Brothers 2000 in the "Things That Didn't Happen" section.
Your sig...
It's "Uruk-hai" not "Olog-hai"
Sorry, seen your sig a dozen times and it just -=bugs=- me.
I'm afraid you're wrong. Uruk-hai and Olog-hai are not the same thing, the former are orcs while the latter are trolls.
Why would you pay to wait???
As the Lead Designer of the PC game Majesty explained to me the technical term is called "Dead Time."
It's recommended that you get up and walk about for 5 minutes every hour, WoW flight paths encourage this as people go grab a drink and whatnot during the flight.
Not sure if you are joking or not, but 1 foot is exactly .3048 meters, because 1inch is exactly 2.54 centimeters.
Unless you are using U.S. survey feet which is 1200 / 3937 meters, approx. 0.3048006 meters. This actually comes up alot in GIS and mapping because of the use of survey feet in older state plane coordinate systems.
If you were converting to SI you wouldn't be using US Survey feet, you'd be using SI feet.
Unlikely as they're priced by weight, 10% less tomatoes means 10% less cost.
Did congress NOT accept Bush's Declaration of War on Afghanistan and Iraq?
The last declaration of war by the USA was during World War II, you never declared war on Afghanistan or Iraq.
2. Where does the Bill of Rights say "This only applies to citizens"?
It doesn't (I think) but everything has an area of jurisdiction.
The 14th amendment to your constitution clearly distinguishes between citizens and persons and says "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. ". Seems pretty clear to me.
I always believe the triumvirate state in Republic was supposed to be an analogy for the mind/soul. Nothing to do with politics at all.
I'm not interested in what places that used to be monarchies that retain that label. If the king/queen doesn't have ruling power then they're no longer monarchs and some other form of government (or anarchy) is present. A constitutional democracy with a person called "king" who is required to do some ceremonial duties and wields no power isn't a monarchy.
In the UK the Queen can refuse royal assent to a bill, she is the last line of defence for the people against a corrupt government. Most monarchs are not just titular, even in constitutional monarchies.
On the 5th of January it was announced he had a minor hormonal imbalance, on the 14th it was announced that things had become more complex and Jobs was taking extended leave with no elaboration given.
On the 5th the diagnosis was hormonal imbalance caused by nutritional issues, between then and the 14th that diagnosis changed. Everyone with more than 2 brain cells worked that out, they just weren't told until now exactly what had changed.
For all those against socialised health care, this guy's experience is why you're wrong and will always be wrong. No civilised country would permit this.
I just hope people realise that neither system is perfect and going to free healthcare will not solve everyone's problems.
I'm in the UK and have private healthcare cover as part of my job package. If I have a heart attack I get top quality free emergency care from the NHS. If I get cancer I get top quality expensive cancer drugs from my private cover. There is nothing stopping you from also taking out private healthcare cover for the things the NHS can't afford, anyone pretending otherwise is trying to fudge the argument.
And businesses that are fundamentally unprofitable (like railways) are best run by the state.
BT also have download quotas, they're just too stupid to set them appropriately.
BT have a Heavy User package (£20.54pcm) that contains the following as part of it's description...
If you can't afford to provide it then don't advertise it, fuckwits. Manage your customer's expectations properly and stop making promises you can't keep, it's a much more sustainable business model.
A good landing is one you walk away from, a great landing is one where you get to use the plane again.
I not only have an S3 Virge in my drawer but it saw action a couple of years ago when a mate accidentally flashed his expensive ATI card with a blank firmware :)
Not so much, no.
In, for example, Germany churches can collect taxes on their members. If you declare yourself to be a member of the Roman Catholic church then your employer will deduct your church tax at source. If you remove yourself from the church you stop paying the tax. The tax is not levied by the government, it's levied by your church and optionally collected by the government on their behalf (for a fee). If your church chooses not to tax it's congregation then it is free to do so, just as you are free to declare yourself not a member of the church any more if you don't want to pay their tax.
So no, the politicians have nothing to do with it and it's not something you're forced to do.