With that being said, it is a lot more complicated to make a good flavored bread that turns out well than it is to make pasta sauce. That's funny. I find it much easier to understand the inner workings of bread (knead,rise, punch, etc.) and have had trouble in the past making a descent marinara directly from tomatoes.
I guess, as always, YMMV.
I apologize in advance for being somewhat of an apologist for the previous poster, as you make some good arguments.
While it can be said fairly that he had used the word liberties when he only had the singular liberty in mind, that doesn't mean that the statement is not true.
Loss of privacy is usually the first step towards the loss of essential liberty. Which is the progressive loss of all liberties. Hence, the statement stands as written.
The explanation:
Privacy ensures that the state doesn't take too much power, because as privacy moves closer to zero and a government's information on its citizens increases towards infinite any reason to bring anyone in on charges can be trumped up. Basically, the less privacy there is, the more likely you are guilty of something, anything, even trivial stuff. At that point, all that has to happen for an incarceration is for a person to say the wrong thing to the wrong person, or be in the wrong place in the wrong time. That equates to loss of freedom of speech and the loss of the ability to move about freely. And that's just two examples.
Oh, I just read this one. They've been to Cuba, a state sponsor of terror. No wonder they're on the list. Never mind that I hear Cuban cigars are perfectly legal in Canada.
Those RAT bastards! How dare they smoke good cigars.
If someone keeps insisting that one and one is three "because this book says so!", I will examine the book they are reading. If later on the book claims "The sky is green!" I will point this out as an example of the book's innaccuracy,
It's not necessary to point out the fallacies the book at all. If proof is on your side that should be enough. The Christian is already exhibiting what you consider irrational behavior. No amount of you pointing out that the book is wrong is going to sway them. Essentially at the point of quoting the Bible you are playing the argument game by their rules and there is no way to "win".
If the sky is green, point to a blue card and ask what color it is, and then point at the sky and ask what color it is. If the believer replies green, forget about it. The believer is a lost cause, because that is how faith works.
Look at the issue this way. Atheists, in my experience, often to like war analogies to describe the argument process, so that is what I'll use.
Imagine a war (argument) between two countries. One is call Christlandia and the other Atheianon. Now Atheinon has guns and bombs and other deadly weapons at its desposal (pure logic and science), and Christlandia can only counter in clowns* (Faith)
Obviously Atheinon has an advantage in the war. Yet according to your theory, you deploy clowns instead and want to have a silly war. My question is why would you want to when you can blow the other side away with guns and bombs?
*Friendly silly clowns not like killer clowns or scary circus clowns.
I hate it when Atheists attempt to prove Christians wrong by quoting the Bible.
It's just as bad as when Christians quote to Bible in an attempt to prove Atheists wrong.
Except that it's twice as stupid and only half as funny.
And yes, AC. Liberal Christians do exist.
They tend to be quieter and don't like arguing Biblical points with Atheists, having cast that dust off their sandals early on in their Christianity.
This sounds like a horrible idea to me from other standpoints too:
2) The US has this thing called the PATRIOT act, and MS has agreements with some agencies allowing back-door access to data they host. Let's just say that I highly doubt this information will be protected from people working for US "security" agencies.
Uhmm that was already the hidden agenda of the HIPPA regulations. The government has complete access to your medical records.
You're either dumb in that you've completely missed the meaning of my statements, or you're a disingenuous, lying asshole.
Either way, I don't see any reason to continue this thread any longer.
Of course I do, and you mealy-mouthed apologists aren't fooling anyone by pretending that Stalin, HItler, and the rest of the twentieth-century butchers weren't socialists.
-jcr
If you weren't serious, I'd almost think that was funny in a brash way.
We were hoping that after Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot, you people would have the decency to fade away.
-jcr
What does fascist communism have anything to do with socialism? In other words, you have no idea what socialism is and you need to shut up.
Are you even aware that socialism is more common than straight capitalism? Even in the US. Do realize that there is *gasp* capitalistic fascism that is just as bad if not worse than socialism? Grow up. Learn about the world, then foam at the mouth.
Concerta at first and , as well as therapy. I also did some heavy research into the disease and successful coping mechanisms. (the book: "You Mean I'm Not Lazy, Stupid or Crazy?!" by by Kate Kelly and Peggy Ramundo was tremendously helpful.)
Several months into Concerta and was I finding that the Ritalin ups and downs were too much for me to handle. One 12 hour Concerta would last roughly 9 hours, which was fine while I was at work, but the trough of the wave actually brought me lower than my normal ADD baseline making me useless after I came home. The Psychiatrist gave me follow on Ritalin pill but if I took it, then I was completely exhausted by the end of the day.
Now I'm completely off of the stimulants and I'm taking Strattera, and while it doesn't work quite as well as the Ritalin did, it works well enough without having to deal with any side-effects like the aforementioned stimulant treadmill. The only unwanted side-effect is that I have to eat before taking my pills in the morning. Otherwise I end up with some pretty heavy nausea.
You haven't been paying attention. Perhaps you have ADD (Joking)
ADD is so much more than your kid going "But I don't wanna!" and you also seem to have causation and correlation mixed up. The TV doesn't cause ADD (I can't see how it helps much either) ADD kids are drawn to the television, particularly in homes where it's left on all the time. I hate TVs left on for that exact reason and will turn it off if someone left it on in my house, because it is so potentially distracting to me. Kids with ADD that are allowed to watch too much television, will watch too much television. A normal child may become bored, an ADD child will lose track of time. It's actually very important for parents of ADD children (who often suffer from ADD themselves) to train their kids when to shut of the boob tube. Which isn't as easy as it sounds, but is one of many important coping mechanisms for ADDers.
So, they can focus intently on things that interest them, but they have a lot of trouble focusing on things that don't interest them? So, what part of that is the 'disordered' part?
The disordered part is the control bit. The key word is "can't" As in I'm browsing the web and it takes 5 minutes just for my wife to get my attention (hyperfocus) and I despise televisions because I often can't focus on anything else in a room if one is turned on. In either case I barely have control over where and how deeply I can focus on something.
Granted there are degrees to the thing, but the most part, without medicine (and no I don't take stimulant based medication, thank you very much) it can be exhausting to swing my focus around and keep it centered on something that doesn't engross or distract me. With medicine my focus becomes a little more controllable.
Negative karma be damned: You are a completely ignorant and a vain bigoted asshole to boot!
Go out. Get some books. Learn about a subject before spewing out your mouth about that which you don't know.
Since you obviously don't have a clue, it is very easy for me to say that you have no idea what goes on in other people's heads.
And you don't seem to grasp some of the basic concepts of science, observation and experimentation to say that psychologists just pull these pathologies out of thin air.
Most brain diseases have been studied extensively. If you bothered to learn you will be surprised to find that these are rigorous studies, with measurable results, that can be repeated. From studies of rare brain injuries in identical twins to mapping the brains with MRIs to cleverly designed tests and experiments that carefully discern bits of information, these all go together to paint a larger picture of the various abnormalities of the brain. These are real things which you can never grasp from behind your ignorance, yet you seemed to have developed a [ill informed] opinion about.
In addition, with the modern extremely broad definition of ADD I wonder how we can make any generalizations about ADD diagnosed people. Remember that officially diagnosed friend of mine? We regurally play multi-hour sessions of Age of Empires, and he stays focused the entire time no problem. He also gets great grades, and doesn't take any medications at all. When someone who doesn't need any meds to do well in school and pay attention for hours can be diagnosed with ADD then I personally believe the diagnosis of ADD is far to wide.
That's right. You, in you're near infinite wisdom know more than all the psychologists and psychiatrists combined.
If I see one more idiot non-psychologist person drag out this uneducated screed, I'm gonna screem. ADD was actually poorly named, because they didn't completely understand the disease at first. It would be more accurate to call it Attention Control Deficit Disorder.
Most people can shift their focus fairly easily, so easily in fact that they don't even notice. An ADDer has no control.
For instance, when walking into a room with a television on, I can barely talk to a person without being completely distracted by the TV. On the other hand during some intense activities an ADDer like myself can fall into a sort of HyperFocus in which the rest of the world doesn't exist. This is what your friend is doing while playing the game.
Before medicine I would often be doing some work on my computer and become so engrossed that my boss would be literally standing beside me, yelling my name and I wouldn't even notice him there.
They may not be able to detect contraband... but it could bring up the "Registered Owner" and their list of "priors" which could then be used to profile a car in the hopes that the driver would be the registered owner and then search them for contraband.
Did everyone forget how Comcast was able to monopolize the cable market?
They were given a great wad of cash in the mid-nineties by MicroSoft. Within the year they had taken over MediaOne and several other smaller local cable territories. I suppose that M$ is calling in their favors.
The city in question is packed into the base of a mountain and the ocean. There are no roads that lead there. The only way to get there is by boat or by plane, and if you take a plane you will still have to take a boat to get to town.
Then why do people live there? Might it be cheaper to just live somewhere else?
It's just like the Federal Government subsidizing people who want to live in flood zones (coastal areas are the worst) with cheap flood insurance. When the answer is to let natural consequences take it's course and let the stupid fools lose their homes and not be able to get insurance, because it's too much of a risk to the insurance company to provide insurance to those fools. Eventually, people (other than insanely rich people that can afford to replace their home when it occasionally gets washed out to sea) will stop building homes in flood prone areas.
The bridge is a solution in search of a problem. The people that live there knew that the only way out is a ferry, and yet still chose to live there. So why are we bailing them out? It's not like anyone's holding a gun to their head and forcing them to live there.
and/or little or little/no oxygen that can be put into the atmosphere
I could be wrong but isn't the planet covered in iron oxide? If you heat rust hot enough (say, a nuclear blast furnace) you get oxygen, and as an added bonus elemental iron from which to add carbon to make steel things with (like more nuclear blast furnaces!)
On Mars the solar wind abrades the upper layers of atmosphere while on Earth the magnetosphere deflects the solar wind (resulting in pretty northern/souther lights at the poles.)
And if you want to go further, having a hot molten-iron planet core is the real reason for having a stable atmosphere, because without it there would be no magnetic field.
Slashdot Mirror
Because they're not loosers hung up on minor spelling errors?
Correct, you're losers that never learned spelling or grammar well enough to pass as an intelligent writer.
That's funny. I find it much easier to understand the inner workings of bread (knead,rise, punch, etc.) and have had trouble in the past making a descent marinara directly from tomatoes.
I guess, as always, YMMV.
a warm gas. (and lightweight electrons.)
I apologize in advance for being somewhat of an apologist for the previous poster, as you make some good arguments.
While it can be said fairly that he had used the word liberties when he only had the singular liberty in mind, that doesn't mean that the statement is not true.
Loss of privacy is usually the first step towards the loss of essential liberty. Which is the progressive loss of all liberties. Hence, the statement stands as written.
The explanation:
Privacy ensures that the state doesn't take too much power, because as privacy moves closer to zero and a government's information on its citizens increases towards infinite any reason to bring anyone in on charges can be trumped up. Basically, the less privacy there is, the more likely you are guilty of something, anything, even trivial stuff. At that point, all that has to happen for an incarceration is for a person to say the wrong thing to the wrong person, or be in the wrong place in the wrong time. That equates to loss of freedom of speech and the loss of the ability to move about freely. And that's just two examples.
Those RAT bastards! How dare they smoke good cigars.
Most newsmen (judging by their use of the term "many" in place of actual integers - even very small ones - in most of their stories.
Either that or they think their audience can't understand numbers greater than three or so.
Really! In "most" of their stories they use the term "many" in place of apparently uncounted small numbers. Wonders never cease.
64 cpu's. That seems supercomputerish enough for me.
None of you obviously understand Ghandi.
He said "then they fight you" Note the lack of fighting back.
Ghandi relied on total non-violence and giving the enemy a bad PR black-eye.
When he said "then they fight you" he meant that they fight and you just sit there and take it and make the enemy look like assholes. Not fight back.
It's not necessary to point out the fallacies the book at all. If proof is on your side that should be enough. The Christian is already exhibiting what you consider irrational behavior. No amount of you pointing out that the book is wrong is going to sway them. Essentially at the point of quoting the Bible you are playing the argument game by their rules and there is no way to "win".
If the sky is green, point to a blue card and ask what color it is, and then point at the sky and ask what color it is. If the believer replies green, forget about it. The believer is a lost cause, because that is how faith works.
Look at the issue this way. Atheists, in my experience, often to like war analogies to describe the argument process, so that is what I'll use.
Imagine a war (argument) between two countries. One is call Christlandia and the other Atheianon. Now Atheinon has guns and bombs and other deadly weapons at its desposal (pure logic and science), and Christlandia can only counter in clowns* (Faith)
Obviously Atheinon has an advantage in the war. Yet according to your theory, you deploy clowns instead and want to have a silly war. My question is why would you want to when you can blow the other side away with guns and bombs?
*Friendly silly clowns not like killer clowns or scary circus clowns.
I hate it when Atheists attempt to prove Christians wrong by quoting the Bible.
It's just as bad as when Christians quote to Bible in an attempt to prove Atheists wrong.
Except that it's twice as stupid and only half as funny.
And yes, AC. Liberal Christians do exist.
They tend to be quieter and don't like arguing Biblical points with Atheists, having cast that dust off their sandals early on in their Christianity.
Yah, I work with medical data and while doing my HIPAA awareness training, I was surprised and disturbed by it also.
Here's more info:
http://www.aclu.org/privacy/medical/15222res20030530.html
2) The US has this thing called the PATRIOT act, and MS has agreements with some agencies allowing back-door access to data they host. Let's just say that I highly doubt this information will be protected from people working for US "security" agencies.
Uhmm that was already the hidden agenda of the HIPPA regulations. The government has complete access to your medical records.
You're either dumb in that you've completely missed the meaning of my statements, or you're a disingenuous, lying asshole.
Either way, I don't see any reason to continue this thread any longer.
Of course I do, and you mealy-mouthed apologists aren't fooling anyone by pretending that Stalin, HItler, and the rest of the twentieth-century butchers weren't socialists.
-jcr
If you weren't serious, I'd almost think that was funny in a brash way.
-jcr
What does fascist communism have anything to do with socialism? In other words, you have no idea what socialism is and you need to shut up.
Are you even aware that socialism is more common than straight capitalism? Even in the US. Do realize that there is *gasp* capitalistic fascism that is just as bad if not worse than socialism?
Grow up. Learn about the world, then foam at the mouth.
Concerta at first and , as well as therapy. I also did some heavy research into the disease and successful coping mechanisms. (the book: "You Mean I'm Not Lazy, Stupid or Crazy?!" by by Kate Kelly and Peggy Ramundo was tremendously helpful.)
Several months into Concerta and was I finding that the Ritalin ups and downs were too much for me to handle. One 12 hour Concerta would last roughly 9 hours, which was fine while I was at work, but the trough of the wave actually brought me lower than my normal ADD baseline making me useless after I came home. The Psychiatrist gave me follow on Ritalin pill but if I took it, then I was completely exhausted by the end of the day.
Now I'm completely off of the stimulants and I'm taking Strattera, and while it doesn't work quite as well as the Ritalin did, it works well enough without having to deal with any side-effects like the aforementioned stimulant treadmill. The only unwanted side-effect is that I have to eat before taking my pills in the morning. Otherwise I end up with some pretty heavy nausea.
You haven't been paying attention. Perhaps you have ADD (Joking)
ADD is so much more than your kid going "But I don't wanna!" and you also seem to have causation and correlation mixed up. The TV doesn't cause ADD (I can't see how it helps much either) ADD kids are drawn to the television, particularly in homes where it's left on all the time. I hate TVs left on for that exact reason and will turn it off if someone left it on in my house, because it is so potentially distracting to me. Kids with ADD that are allowed to watch too much television, will watch too much television. A normal child may become bored, an ADD child will lose track of time. It's actually very important for parents of ADD children (who often suffer from ADD themselves) to train their kids when to shut of the boob tube. Which isn't as easy as it sounds, but is one of many important coping mechanisms for ADDers.
So, they can focus intently on things that interest them, but they have a lot of trouble focusing on things that don't interest them? So, what part of that is the 'disordered' part?
The disordered part is the control bit. The key word is "can't" As in I'm browsing the web and it takes 5 minutes just for my wife to get my attention (hyperfocus) and I despise televisions because I often can't focus on anything else in a room if one is turned on. In either case I barely have control over where and how deeply I can focus on something.
Granted there are degrees to the thing, but the most part, without medicine (and no I don't take stimulant based medication, thank you very much) it can be exhausting to swing my focus around and keep it centered on something that doesn't engross or distract me. With medicine my focus becomes a little more controllable.
Negative karma be damned: You are a completely ignorant and a vain bigoted asshole to boot!
Go out. Get some books. Learn about a subject before spewing out your mouth about that which you don't know.
Since you obviously don't have a clue, it is very easy for me to say that you have no idea what goes on in other people's heads.
And you don't seem to grasp some of the basic concepts of science, observation and experimentation to say that psychologists just pull these pathologies out of thin air.
Most brain diseases have been studied extensively. If you bothered to learn you will be surprised to find that these are rigorous studies, with measurable results, that can be repeated. From studies of rare brain injuries in identical twins to mapping the brains with MRIs to cleverly designed tests and experiments that carefully discern bits of information, these all go together to paint a larger picture of the various abnormalities of the brain. These are real things which you can never grasp from behind your ignorance, yet you seemed to have developed a [ill informed] opinion about.
In addition, with the modern extremely broad definition of ADD I wonder how we can make any generalizations about ADD diagnosed people. Remember that officially diagnosed friend of mine? We regurally play multi-hour sessions of Age of Empires, and he stays focused the entire time no problem. He also gets great grades, and doesn't take any medications at all. When someone who doesn't need any meds to do well in school and pay attention for hours can be diagnosed with ADD then I personally believe the diagnosis of ADD is far to wide.
That's right. You, in you're near infinite wisdom know more than all the psychologists and psychiatrists combined.
If I see one more idiot non-psychologist person drag out this uneducated screed, I'm gonna screem. ADD was actually poorly named, because they didn't completely understand the disease at first. It would be more accurate to call it Attention Control Deficit Disorder.
Most people can shift their focus fairly easily, so easily in fact that they don't even notice. An ADDer has no control.
For instance, when walking into a room with a television on, I can barely talk to a person without being completely distracted by the TV. On the other hand during some intense activities an ADDer like myself can fall into a sort of HyperFocus in which the rest of the world doesn't exist. This is what your friend is doing while playing the game.
Before medicine I would often be doing some work on my computer and become so engrossed that my boss would be literally standing beside me, yelling my name and I wouldn't even notice him there.
They may not be able to detect contraband... but it could bring up the "Registered Owner" and their list of "priors" which could then be used to profile a car in the hopes that the driver would be the registered owner and then search them for contraband.
They do that anyway.
Did everyone forget how Comcast was able to monopolize the cable market?
They were given a great wad of cash in the mid-nineties by MicroSoft. Within the year they had taken over MediaOne and several other smaller local cable territories. I suppose that M$ is calling in their favors.
The city in question is packed into the base of a mountain and the ocean. There are no roads that lead there. The only way to get there is by boat or by plane, and if you take a plane you will still have to take a boat to get to town.
Then why do people live there? Might it be cheaper to just live somewhere else?
It's just like the Federal Government subsidizing people who want to live in flood zones (coastal areas are the worst) with cheap flood insurance. When the answer is to let natural consequences take it's course and let the stupid fools lose their homes and not be able to get insurance, because it's too much of a risk to the insurance company to provide insurance to those fools. Eventually, people (other than insanely rich people that can afford to replace their home when it occasionally gets washed out to sea) will stop building homes in flood prone areas.
The bridge is a solution in search of a problem. The people that live there knew that the only way out is a ferry, and yet still chose to live there. So why are we bailing them out? It's not like anyone's holding a gun to their head and forcing them to live there.
and/or little or little/no oxygen that can be put into the atmosphere
I could be wrong but isn't the planet covered in iron oxide? If you heat rust hot enough (say, a nuclear blast furnace) you get oxygen, and as an added bonus elemental iron from which to add carbon to make steel things with (like more nuclear blast furnaces!)
Actually, it's the lack of a magnetic field.
On Mars the solar wind abrades the upper layers of atmosphere while on Earth the magnetosphere deflects the solar wind (resulting in pretty northern/souther lights at the poles.)
And if you want to go further, having a hot molten-iron planet core is the real reason for having a stable atmosphere, because without it there would be no magnetic field.