Your idea is about as appealing (and almost the same as) leaving all my money to an identical twin I've never known and never met. In fact, it's even less appealing. This twin lives in a different time and would be much more different to me than an actual identical twin would be.
http://slashdot.org/book.review.guidelines.shtml Speaking of links, please do not include links in your reviews to online bookstores. Slashdot has an linking arrangement with Barnes & Noble; that's why when bn.com carries a particular book, you'll see a link to it at the bottom of the review.
Now some people from Microsoft gets assigned to implement this new feature, and for extra credit also write a patent application (or submit the idea to the people who write the patent application).
Why are the ones who were assigned to implement a feature the ones who decide to write the patent application? Shouldn't those who came up with the new feature (designer) be the one? And shouldn't the designer know that it wasn't his/her idea?
Now type "w einstein" in the address bar and you reach http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein With practice, you'll be getting a positive hit almost all the time and the times you get a different article, the article you want is just one click away (which is how it is with the way you are doing it anyway)
Fuck Mickey Mouse! Fuck him in the asshole with a big rubber dick. Then break it off and beat him with the rest of it. I hope Mickey dies! I do. I hope he Goddamn dies. I hope he gets hold of some tainted cheese and dies lonely and forgotten behind the baseboard of a soiled bathroom in a poor neighborhood. With his hand in Goofy's pants. - George Carlin
Or if you prefer, read Darwin's "On the Origin of Species"
That is an incredibly stupid argument. 'The fittest have survived' does not mean 'The fittest must survive'.
I prefer to agree that natural selection is the dominant force in biological evolution, admit its unpleasantness, and fight against it as a human being. I hear the bleak sermon of the Devil's Chaplain as a call to arms. As an academic scientist I am a passionate Darwinian, believing that natural selection is, if not the only driving force in evolution, certainly the only known force capable of producing the illusion of purpose which so strikes all who contemplate nature. But at the same time as I support Darwinism as a scientist, I am a passionate anti-Darwinian when it comes to politics and how we should conduct our human affairs. I have always held true to the closing words of my first book, 'We, alone on earth, can rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators.'
If you seem to smell inconsistency or even contradiction, you are mistaken. There is no inconsistency in favouring Darwinism as an academic scientist while opposing it as a human being; any more than there is inconsistency in explaining cancer as an academic doctor while fighting it as a practising one. For good Darwinian reasons, evolution gave us a brain whose size increased to the point where it became capable of understanding its own provenance, of deploring the moral implications and of fighting against them. Every time we use contraception we demonstrate that brains can thwart Darwinian designs. If, as my wife suggests to me, selfish genes are Frankensteins and all life their monster, it is only we that can complete the fable by turning against our creators. Yes, man can be vile too, but we are the only potential island of refuge from the implications of the Devil's Chaplain: from the cruelty, and the clumsy, blundering waste.
This is exactly what it means to be a Christian.
If I believed that those who don't believe in Jesus are going to end up in hell, fuck the law and fuck the rules. I'll be trying my best to make sure my students don't end up in Hell. Unless of course, I was selfish. The teacher probably believes it would be a mortal sin of omission to let kids go to hell, anyway. If murder is a mortal sin (Although I don't see how a Christian could find murder immoral. I think killing baptised babies should be perfectly acceptable. Why let them grow up, sin and risk hell?), then looking away while your students are fated for hell is an infinite times worse. In fact, if you really are a Christian and aren't trying to convince those you love to become Christians, do you love them anyway?
P.S: Is it possible to be a Christian, moral and not be batshit insane at the same time?
I lack belief in the existence of God. I don't know for sure that He doesn't exist. But I just see no reason to suppose He does.
When I am giving God's existence the same probability I give Superman or Wonderwoman's existence, it's disingenuous for me to call myself an agnostic. I am a weak atheist.
He is sarcastic half the time and exaggerates the other half, but he always has a point. And I have never seen him laugh about those who take him seriously. There are a few who quite often don't know when he's sarcastic as is obvious from some of the comments he gets. But he never asks not to be taken seriously. Read his Sunday posts where he reiterates the points he makes during the week, but without the jokes.
The post linked to in this story was him exaggerating.
Suppose you are an intellectual impostor with nothing to say, but with strong ambitions to succeed in academic life, collect a coterie of reverent disciples and have students around the world anoint your pages with respectful yellow highlighter. What kind of literary style would you cultivate? Not a lucid one, surely, for clarity would expose your lack of content.
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
I'm never understood this. Why attribute to stupidity that which is adequately explained by malice? These are spammers. If they can untrain spam-filters, they will. How is picking stupidity over malice in this case a wise decision?
It's really not about being right or wrong, but about the way we get there. It's about being sane. It's about the thought process that leads you to your conclusions.
Maybe there is a God. Maybe the theists are lucky. Maybe they're delusional and dumb and by some magnificient stroke of luck right. They're still fucking insane though.
Google though does an incredible job of matching keywords with Wikipedia Pages. Combined with I'm-Feeling-Lucky and Firefox's keyword bookmarks, we have magic.
A Firefox Quick Search bookmark everybody needs to have. http://www.google.co.in/search?hl=en&q=%25s+site%3 Aen.wikipedia.org&btnI=I'm+Feeling+Lucky&meta=
It's a satire of Google's own business model. Their contextual ads and their Beta products. And it's biting. I'm just reminded why I like Google.
6. What is Contextual Dating? It's a free date plus the added accrued value of the past decade's worth of post-Industrial Age online marketing genius, all tied into a real-time, video-based, GPS-tracked, psychographically astute and environmentally pervasive promotional system.
7. Come again? You see ads that might make your date better.
8. Such as? Flowers. Music. Personal advice. E-greetings. Later on, depending on how our long-term opt-out natural-language-based monitoring system thinks things are going, personalized thank you notes, romantic getaway offers, various intimate pharmaceutical come-ons, engagement and bridal wear catalogs - you know the drill.
9. What if I don't want to see contextual dating ads? Don't use the product.
10. What do you mean when you say Google Romance is a beta product? What do you mean when you ask us what we mean when we say Google Romance is a beta product? It is what is it, okay? It's new, it's probably still buggy, which is to say that yes, by using this product now you conceivably are setting yourself up for a disastrous outcome - but on the other hand, you might also be on the verge of thrilling to an experience that will transform your very existence and only could have come about because you took this step, right here, right now. You're online; take a chance. We may never pass this way again. Carpe diem. The world could, like, end tomorrow, you know? Gather ye rosebuds while --
Slashdot Mirror
Your idea is about as appealing (and almost the same as) leaving all my money to an identical twin I've never known and never met. In fact, it's even less appealing. This twin lives in a different time and would be much more different to me than an actual identical twin would be.
The point is that the iPod did not have separate pause and stop buttons
Why can't "Underrated" be the new "Funny"?
iGoogle
Google is a lot better at searching Wikipedia than Wikipedia is.
. wikipedia.org&btnI=I'm+Feeling+Lucky&meta=
Yes, but I never see Google or its ads to get to Wikipedia.
I just have this Firefox Keyword bookmark.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%25s+site:en
http://slashdot.org/book.review.guidelines.shtml
Speaking of links, please do not include links in your reviews to online bookstores. Slashdot has an linking arrangement with Barnes & Noble; that's why when bn.com carries a particular book, you'll see a link to it at the bottom of the review.
Now some people from Microsoft gets assigned to implement this new feature, and for extra credit also write a patent application (or submit the idea to the people who write the patent application).
Why are the ones who were assigned to implement a feature the ones who decide to write the patent application? Shouldn't those who came up with the new feature (designer) be the one? And shouldn't the designer know that it wasn't his/her idea?
Besides that the nofollow attributes are only for external links, here is Wikipedia/Google/Firefox smart keywords magic.
e n.wikipedia.org&btnI=I'm+Feeling+Lucky&meta=
Create this bookmark and assign a keyword to it (mine is 'w')
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%25s+site%3A
Now type "w einstein" in the address bar and you reach http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein
With practice, you'll be getting a positive hit almost all the time and the times you get a different article, the article you want is just one click away (which is how it is with the way you are doing it anyway)
Fuck Mickey Mouse! Fuck him in the asshole with a big rubber dick. Then break it off and beat him with the rest of it. I hope Mickey dies! I do. I hope he Goddamn dies. I hope he gets hold of some tainted cheese and dies lonely and forgotten behind the baseboard of a soiled bathroom in a poor neighborhood. With his hand in Goofy's pants. - George Carlin
Or if you prefer, read Darwin's "On the Origin of Species"
That is an incredibly stupid argument. 'The fittest have survived' does not mean 'The fittest must survive'.
I prefer to agree that natural selection is the dominant force in biological evolution, admit its unpleasantness, and fight against it as a human being. I hear the bleak sermon of the Devil's Chaplain as a call to arms. As an academic scientist I am a passionate Darwinian, believing that natural selection is, if not the only driving force in evolution, certainly the only known force capable of producing the illusion of purpose which so strikes all who contemplate nature. But at the same time as I support Darwinism as a scientist, I am a passionate anti-Darwinian when it comes to politics and how we should conduct our human affairs. I have always held true to the closing words of my first book, 'We, alone on earth, can rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators.'
If you seem to smell inconsistency or even contradiction, you are mistaken. There is no inconsistency in favouring Darwinism as an academic scientist while opposing it as a human being; any more than there is inconsistency in explaining cancer as an academic doctor while fighting it as a practising one. For good Darwinian reasons, evolution gave us a brain whose size increased to the point where it became capable of understanding its own provenance, of deploring the moral implications and of fighting against them. Every time we use contraception we demonstrate that brains can thwart Darwinian designs. If, as my wife suggests to me, selfish genes are Frankensteins and all life their monster, it is only we that can complete the fable by turning against our creators. Yes, man can be vile too, but we are the only potential island of refuge from the implications of the Devil's Chaplain: from the cruelty, and the clumsy, blundering waste.
-Dawkins in Rebelling Against Our Selfish Genes
It seemed so plausible! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qmglGWMsdk
I said immoral, not sinful. If you truly wanted a bunch of babies to reach heaven, you would be willing to sin and go to hell to do it.
This is exactly what it means to be a Christian.
If I believed that those who don't believe in Jesus are going to end up in hell, fuck the law and fuck the rules. I'll be trying my best to make sure my students don't end up in Hell. Unless of course, I was selfish. The teacher probably believes it would be a mortal sin of omission to let kids go to hell, anyway. If murder is a mortal sin (Although I don't see how a Christian could find murder immoral. I think killing baptised babies should be perfectly acceptable. Why let them grow up, sin and risk hell?), then looking away while your students are fated for hell is an infinite times worse. In fact, if you really are a Christian and aren't trying to convince those you love to become Christians, do you love them anyway?
P.S: Is it possible to be a Christian, moral and not be batshit insane at the same time?
I lack belief in the existence of God. I don't know for sure that He doesn't exist. But I just see no reason to suppose He does.
When I am giving God's existence the same probability I give Superman or Wonderwoman's existence, it's disingenuous for me to call myself an agnostic. I am a weak atheist.
A comment to the post and Scott's reply to it
0 06/11/atheists_the_ne.html#comment-25533598
http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2
Casual Googling suggests that Gates is agnostic, not atheist. God might not care about the difference, but the voters would.
[Agnosticism is the closet of which I wrote. -- Scott]
Scott Adams exaggerates for comic effect. And he exaggerated the current situation in America. It's not his intolerance this is about.
He is sarcastic half the time and exaggerates the other half, but he always has a point. And I have never seen him laugh about those who take him seriously. There are a few who quite often don't know when he's sarcastic as is obvious from some of the comments he gets. But he never asks not to be taken seriously. Read his Sunday posts where he reiterates the points he makes during the week, but without the jokes.
The post linked to in this story was him exaggerating.
Google wants to be loved and not reviled like Microsoft. So they don't want their products to succeed.
http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/dawkins.h tml
Suppose you are an intellectual impostor with nothing to say, but with strong ambitions to succeed in academic life, collect a coterie of reverent disciples and have students around the world anoint your pages with respectful yellow highlighter. What kind of literary style would you cultivate? Not a lucid one, surely, for clarity would expose your lack of content.
Assuming that you aren't trolling, why did you pick IE 7 over Opera? It's a lot faster.
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
I'm never understood this. Why attribute to stupidity that which is adequately explained by malice? These are spammers. If they can untrain spam-filters, they will. How is picking stupidity over malice in this case a wise decision?
The GP is right. That joke is "Funny, but dated"
It's really not about being right or wrong, but about the way we get there. It's about being sane. It's about the thought process that leads you to your conclusions.
Maybe there is a God. Maybe the theists are lucky. Maybe they're delusional and dumb and by some magnificient stroke of luck right. They're still fucking insane though.
Google though does an incredible job of matching keywords with Wikipedia Pages. Combined with I'm-Feeling-Lucky and Firefox's keyword bookmarks, we have magic.
3 Aen.wikipedia.org&btnI=I'm+Feeling+Lucky&meta=
A Firefox Quick Search bookmark everybody needs to have.
http://www.google.co.in/search?hl=en&q=%25s+site%
http://www.google.com/romance/faq.html
It's a satire of Google's own business model. Their contextual ads and their Beta products.
And it's biting. I'm just reminded why I like Google.
6. What is Contextual Dating?
It's a free date plus the added accrued value of the past decade's worth of post-Industrial Age online marketing genius, all tied into a real-time, video-based, GPS-tracked, psychographically astute and environmentally pervasive promotional system.
7. Come again?
You see ads that might make your date better.
8. Such as?
Flowers. Music. Personal advice. E-greetings. Later on, depending on how our long-term opt-out natural-language-based monitoring system thinks things are going, personalized thank you notes, romantic getaway offers, various intimate pharmaceutical come-ons, engagement and bridal wear catalogs - you know the drill.
9. What if I don't want to see contextual dating ads?
Don't use the product.
10. What do you mean when you say Google Romance is a beta product?
What do you mean when you ask us what we mean when we say Google Romance is a beta product? It is what is it, okay? It's new, it's probably still buggy, which is to say that yes, by using this product now you conceivably are setting yourself up for a disastrous outcome - but on the other hand, you might also be on the verge of thrilling to an experience that will transform your very existence and only could have come about because you took this step, right here, right now. You're online; take a chance. We may never pass this way again. Carpe diem. The world could, like, end tomorrow, you know? Gather ye rosebuds while --