What if Google were based in China, where they would normally censor, and were conforming to US policies of NOT censoring? I daresay that all the self-appointed moralists would be dead silent on that one.
Censorship is not evil. Just because you happen to live in a country where it is deemed WRONG does not make it evil. Chinese society will decide this, not some jingo behind a keyboard.
marketingspeak nonsens word is "over" as in "over 40 billion served"
Now, when you have served over 40 billion, I can understand saying "over 40 billion served" and just leave it at that.
But when you have 17 of something, and you say "over 15..." that's just stupid. So now when a company says "over" followed by a number, they've instantly lost credibility with me.
You mean about the pasty skin, fucked up teeth and effeminate speech? You're right, I'll have to shelve those...
DISCLAIMER Your inability to understand humor may make this joke difficult to get. If you have trouble seek someone who is not a wet blanket immediately.
"Bush's tax cuts resulted in a huge cut in federal spending on education"
Source? As a teacher, I can say that all my research indicates INCREASES in education spending. Please don't come back with crap from some rag with no credibility.
"I almost had to drop out because I couldn't afford $4000 for tuition and $1300 for books"
Get a loan like the rest of us. It's not as though there weren't options.
"Oh, and my taxes"
I made 30000 the first year of the cuts, and I got more money in my return. Maybe you should get better at filing your taxes.
Oh, I see, I understand. While I am capable of making the connection between illegal activities and jail, this must be a difficult intellectual task for you. Why else would you think it necessary to enlighten me about SOMETHING I ALREADY KNOW.
Well thank you for your stupid comment, and your stupid follow up, now try not to waste anyone else's time and just shut your mouth. It will make it easier for the rest of us (who are not morons) to have a lucid conversation./rolls off your mom
"While it is illegal to set traps to injure or kill people"
and you did. There's always some jerk-off that doesn't bother to actually read posts. Guess what I KNOW IT IS ILLEGAL, but that wasn't the question. READ something once in a while dumbass.
"and if you go 5MPH over the limit, it's okay for your car to blow up"
What does that have to do with anything? Your post makes no sense and your example is meaningless.
As far as punishment fitting the crime, crack and powder cocaine. You're wrong the punishment need only not be cruel and unusual, it DOES NOT have to fit the crime.
"You'd actually be able to sleep at night knowing you killed some poor drug addict who was strung out looking for a little cash for his latest fix"
Your emphasis is on the wrong guilty party there fella. While it is illegal to set traps to injure or kill people, no one MAKES junkies break into houses. If I did trap my place, I would sleep very well knowing they killed THEMSELVES.
while I descend into a bit of profanity. What a chicken-shit fuck. They were death threats, if they really wanted him dead, they've proven they can find him, he'd be dead already. What a pussy. I dream I can be successful enough someday to have people threaten me with death, because then I've got a product baby.
my ass. This is just a simulation of what would happen if our univers was made up of a bunch of particles a billion times more massive than our sun. Last time I checked, it's not, and to try to pass this simulation off as representing how the universe would behave is silly.
Why sell it as something it's not? Oh grant money, right...
to 28 years of hurricane forecasting, I can say it most certainly has not gotten better, at least not for many years. I could do a better job throwing chicken bones and reading the stars. The weather forecasters here are rarely right, and when they are, it can be atributed to chance.
Unless they meant better at fear mongering, in that case they're top-notch.
Re:Greens won't let us have it
on
Port-A-Nuke
·
· Score: 1
Liar. You're a stoner and you know it, and now you're backpedaling because you got called on it. Don't try to lie, because it's obvious.
By the way, of all the lame excuses I expected to hear, that one is dumber than anything I could have imagined. Lay off the weed if you're going to lie in the future, because you're not very good at it.
Re:Greens won't let us have it
on
Port-A-Nuke
·
· Score: 1
"So you think your shit stinks so little that anyone who dares disagree with you must be on drugs..."
Nope, but with a name like kindbud, you advertised it yourself. Or are you so incredibly stupid that you don't know what that means?
Now shut up and let the adults get back to talking.
Re:Greens won't let us have it
on
Port-A-Nuke
·
· Score: 1
Ok hippie, you keep telling yourself that. Meanwhile the rest of us who aren't stoned will live here in the real world.
By the way, Clinton was on the left, just the center left. Kucinich is farther left than Clinton. Maybe you meant not left enough for you, but then I doubt anyone is.
Re:Greens won't let us have it
on
Port-A-Nuke
·
· Score: 1
"the left has not been in charge of anything for decades."
Did you forget about Clinton? He was in charge of something if I remember correctly...
"Why, pray tell, should the United States and the current nuclear club be the only countries...."
Because when a technology has the capacity to end life on earth (nuclear winter) it just makes sense for someone to do it. Keeping politics out of it for a moment, the US and others simply have the resources to do the job.
It has nothing to do with arrogance, and it's silly to try to argue that nuclear tech should be given to anyone that wants it. Keeping that in mind, who would you rather have monitor nuclear proliferation?
I'd say that's proportional to how badly we need power. When fossil fuels run out, if nuclear is the only viable alternative, then yes they'll tolerate it.
"but I am on the research staff at a very prestigious university"
Really, which one. You see, I conduct brain research (synaptic formation in pre-adolescent children) at a university. I'm currently in the second year of my PhD program. And I can tell by your responses that you are probably lying. If you are on the "research staff at a prestigious university" I suspect you don't actually DO any research, nor have any understanding of how it's done.
Listen don't bother responding, I'm not going to waste my time with a liar.
"You want to make up a new institution for interracial couples"
So you're saying skin color is the same as gender? Are you really that lacking in logical faculties that you honestly tried to equate race to gender. Or were you trying to play the race card?
Stop trying to turn one argument (race) into another (gender) they're not the same, and you know it.
And you STILL dodged the point, which is that by allowing men to marry men you create new "rights" where none exist previously.
Leave race out of this, it's not my fault you're a racist, but leave your racism out of the discussion.
Well, since everything you've claimed about me in your reply is wrong, it's clear to me that continuing this discourse is useless.
Had you bothered to actually READ my post, you'd realize my tone had not changed, I was simply responding (as a professional researcher) to you researc(and it's faults) My statements about your "research" were to show the it was not evidence, and that only a weak (not week) correlation exists. You clearly don't know anything about how research is done (and twisted) so I can see how you would misunderstand.
In case you didn't get it THERE IS NO EVIDENCE that homosexuality is genetic. None.
Despite what you claim, it's pretty obvious you've made up your mind. I also find it interesting that after I dismantled your "research" your tone changed. Before, I was ignorant, but suddenly you're willing to consider my point of view.
So I checked a little deeper, and spoke to a colleague about the last study (Bailey & Pillard) because I knew I'd seen it somewhere before. I had. When this paper was originally published, it was panned by researchers (I was 15 at the time, so it was well into college before I'd seen it) There were 2 major problems which I overlooked, one of which wasn't even originally reported. The first major problem is that identical (monozygotic) twins are gentically identical. If one brother has genes that predispose him to be gay, then the other brother should also have them. But only 52% of the samples have gay brothers. It should be 100%, unless it's environmental, which ironically is what the researchers suggested when questioned.
Secondly, 9% of of non-twin men reportedly had a gay brother, while 22% of non-identical (dizygotic) twins had a gay brother. They should be exactly the same because fraternal twins are no more likely to share DNA than non-twin brothers.
These are two VERY serious flaws in this study. Now I have a question for you. Why were you so willing to accept the study at face value? Would you be willing to accept a study claiming to prove that homosexuality is a choice? I doubt it.
No, they are not. You will never ever hear any gay rights activist screaming about the inherent gender inequity. This has always been a GAY rights issue.
"Why is it ok for a man and woman who love each other to marry and not for two men or two women"
When did I ever state this? You want to attach yourself to someone who you love, fine I couldn't care less. The issue here is that MARRIAGE is a union between a man and a woman. You want to make up a new institution for gays, go for it. But you can't call it marriage, because that one's taken.
"And why would they have need 'more' rights when they want the same as is now granted to a hetero: to marry the one they love."
Marriage is not about love, it's a social contract between a man and a woman. Love can be completely absent. Which brings us to the original point which you dodged, that a gay man can marry a woman, and a gay woman can marry a man. They have the EXACT SAME rights as I do. By allowing men to marry men, you extend them NEW rights (which have nothing to do with love, so save that crap)
Slashdot Mirror
"It's excess capacity, not excess supply"
Nope. It's both.
From the article
"Predicts Erik Willey, senior product manager at display maker ViewSonic, 'We're going to see an oversupply for the foreseeable future.'"
What if Google were based in China, where they would normally censor, and were conforming to US policies of NOT censoring? I daresay that all the self-appointed moralists would be dead silent on that one.
Censorship is not evil. Just because you happen to live in a country where it is deemed WRONG does not make it evil. Chinese society will decide this, not some jingo behind a keyboard.
marketingspeak nonsens word is "over" as in "over 40 billion served"
Now, when you have served over 40 billion, I can understand saying "over 40 billion served" and just leave it at that.
But when you have 17 of something, and you say "over 15..." that's just stupid. So now when a company says "over" followed by a number, they've instantly lost credibility with me.
"you yanks cannot use anymore on us Brits"
You mean about the pasty skin, fucked up teeth and effeminate speech? You're right, I'll have to shelve those...
DISCLAIMER
Your inability to understand humor may make this joke difficult to get. If you have trouble seek someone who is not a wet blanket immediately.
"Bush's tax cuts resulted in a huge cut in federal spending on education"
Source? As a teacher, I can say that all my research indicates INCREASES in education spending. Please don't come back with crap from some rag with no credibility.
"I almost had to drop out because I couldn't afford $4000 for tuition and $1300 for books"
Get a loan like the rest of us. It's not as though there weren't options.
"Oh, and my taxes"
I made 30000 the first year of the cuts, and I got more money in my return. Maybe you should get better at filing your taxes.
Oh, I see, I understand. While I am capable of making the connection between illegal activities and jail, this must be a difficult intellectual task for you. Why else would you think it necessary to enlighten me about SOMETHING I ALREADY KNOW.
/rolls off your mom
Well thank you for your stupid comment, and your stupid follow up, now try not to waste anyone else's time and just shut your mouth. It will make it easier for the rest of us (who are not morons) to have a lucid conversation.
See, I expected some moron to skip this part
"While it is illegal to set traps to injure or kill people"
and you did. There's always some jerk-off that doesn't bother to actually read posts. Guess what I KNOW IT IS ILLEGAL, but that wasn't the question. READ something once in a while dumbass.
"and if you go 5MPH over the limit, it's okay for your car to blow up"
What does that have to do with anything? Your post makes no sense and your example is meaningless.
As far as punishment fitting the crime, crack and powder cocaine. You're wrong the punishment need only not be cruel and unusual, it DOES NOT have to fit the crime.
"You'd actually be able to sleep at night knowing you killed some poor drug addict who was strung out looking for a little cash for his latest fix"
Your emphasis is on the wrong guilty party there fella. While it is illegal to set traps to injure or kill people, no one MAKES junkies break into houses. If I did trap my place, I would sleep very well knowing they killed THEMSELVES.
while I descend into a bit of profanity. What a chicken-shit fuck. They were death threats, if they really wanted him dead, they've proven they can find him, he'd be dead already. What a pussy. I dream I can be successful enough someday to have people threaten me with death, because then I've got a product baby.
my ass. This is just a simulation of what would happen if our univers was made up of a bunch of particles a billion times more massive than our sun. Last time I checked, it's not, and to try to pass this simulation off as representing how the universe would behave is silly.
Why sell it as something it's not? Oh grant money, right...
to 28 years of hurricane forecasting, I can say it most certainly has not gotten better, at least not for many years. I could do a better job throwing chicken bones and reading the stars. The weather forecasters here are rarely right, and when they are, it can be atributed to chance.
Unless they meant better at fear mongering, in that case they're top-notch.
Liar. You're a stoner and you know it, and now you're backpedaling because you got called on it. Don't try to lie, because it's obvious.
By the way, of all the lame excuses I expected to hear, that one is dumber than anything I could have imagined. Lay off the weed if you're going to lie in the future, because you're not very good at it.
"So you think your shit stinks so little that anyone who dares disagree with you must be on drugs..."
Nope, but with a name like kindbud, you advertised it yourself. Or are you so incredibly stupid that you don't know what that means?
Now shut up and let the adults get back to talking.
Ok hippie, you keep telling yourself that. Meanwhile the rest of us who aren't stoned will live here in the real world.
By the way, Clinton was on the left, just the center left. Kucinich is farther left than Clinton. Maybe you meant not left enough for you, but then I doubt anyone is.
"the left has not been in charge of anything for decades." Did you forget about Clinton? He was in charge of something if I remember correctly...
"Why, pray tell, should the United States and the current nuclear club be the only countries...."
Because when a technology has the capacity to end life on earth (nuclear winter) it just makes sense for someone to do it. Keeping politics out of it for a moment, the US and others simply have the resources to do the job.
It has nothing to do with arrogance, and it's silly to try to argue that nuclear tech should be given to anyone that wants it. Keeping that in mind, who would you rather have monitor nuclear proliferation?
I'd say that's proportional to how badly we need power. When fossil fuels run out, if nuclear is the only viable alternative, then yes they'll tolerate it.
"Greatly written link"
Greatly written English
"but I am on the research staff at a very prestigious university"
Really, which one. You see, I conduct brain research (synaptic formation in pre-adolescent children) at a university. I'm currently in the second year of my PhD program. And I can tell by your responses that you are probably lying. If you are on the "research staff at a prestigious university" I suspect you don't actually DO any research, nor have any understanding of how it's done.
Listen don't bother responding, I'm not going to waste my time with a liar.
"You want to make up a new institution for interracial couples"
So you're saying skin color is the same as gender? Are you really that lacking in logical faculties that you honestly tried to equate race to gender. Or were you trying to play the race card?
Stop trying to turn one argument (race) into another (gender) they're not the same, and you know it.
And you STILL dodged the point, which is that by allowing men to marry men you create new "rights" where none exist previously.
Leave race out of this, it's not my fault you're a racist, but leave your racism out of the discussion.
Well, since everything you've claimed about me in your reply is wrong, it's clear to me that continuing this discourse is useless.
Had you bothered to actually READ my post, you'd realize my tone had not changed, I was simply responding (as a professional researcher) to you researc(and it's faults) My statements about your "research" were to show the it was not evidence, and that only a weak (not week) correlation exists. You clearly don't know anything about how research is done (and twisted) so I can see how you would misunderstand.
In case you didn't get it THERE IS NO EVIDENCE that homosexuality is genetic. None.
"I would.."
Despite what you claim, it's pretty obvious you've made up your mind. I also find it interesting that after I dismantled your "research" your tone changed. Before, I was ignorant, but suddenly you're willing to consider my point of view.
So I checked a little deeper, and spoke to a colleague about the last study (Bailey & Pillard) because I knew I'd seen it somewhere before. I had. When this paper was originally published, it was panned by researchers (I was 15 at the time, so it was well into college before I'd seen it) There were 2 major problems which I overlooked, one of which wasn't even originally reported. The first major problem is that identical (monozygotic) twins are gentically identical. If one brother has genes that predispose him to be gay, then the other brother should also have them. But only 52% of the samples have gay brothers. It should be 100%, unless it's environmental, which ironically is what the researchers suggested when questioned.
Secondly, 9% of of non-twin men reportedly had a gay brother, while 22% of non-identical (dizygotic) twins had a gay brother. They should be exactly the same because fraternal twins are no more likely to share DNA than non-twin brothers.
These are two VERY serious flaws in this study. Now I have a question for you. Why were you so willing to accept the study at face value? Would you be willing to accept a study claiming to prove that homosexuality is a choice? I doubt it.
"They are discussing this based on gender"
No, they are not. You will never ever hear any gay rights activist screaming about the inherent gender inequity. This has always been a GAY rights issue.
"Why is it ok for a man and woman who love each other to marry and not for two men or two women"
When did I ever state this? You want to attach yourself to someone who you love, fine I couldn't care less. The issue here is that MARRIAGE is a union between a man and a woman. You want to make up a new institution for gays, go for it. But you can't call it marriage, because that one's taken.
"And why would they have need 'more' rights when they want the same as is now granted to a hetero: to marry the one they love."
Marriage is not about love, it's a social contract between a man and a woman. Love can be completely absent. Which brings us to the original point which you dodged, that a gay man can marry a woman, and a gay woman can marry a man. They have the EXACT SAME rights as I do. By allowing men to marry men, you extend them NEW rights (which have nothing to do with love, so save that crap)