You do realize that a deer can easily kill a person, right? Hand to Hand combat with a moose or deer buck would be less fair than shooting one with a gun. They have every advantage over you in an unarmed contest. EVERY advantage.
So its perfectly okay to kill a cow in captivity to eat, but hunting a wild animal is different?
How does a food assistance program change anything? People still eat meat, regardless of wether it comes from captivity or the wild.
The difference is, a poor person can far easier go hunting than can get government assistance in some places. I'm speaking from experience having lived the government cheese before, if you know what I mean. (Do they still do cheese even? Its been 30 years). I've lived in places were the government and all handouts combined did not help 25% of the people who were qualified to get it.
You live in a nice comfy world and think that the government just protects everyone and makes everything roses... you are ridiculously mistaken about what its like being poor. Obama didn't magically fix everything with government handouts, sorry. You need to get out into the real world.
In Alaska, its a legal requirement that if you hit an animal and kill it, you MUST notify authorities so that it can be processed for those who need food and can't afford it.
slogging around through forests or grasslands all day is no picnic.
Then one can safely argue that you picked the wrong hobby, didn't you?
I used to go bow hunting with my father just to slog around in the woods with him, rarely did I actually get a kill (No depth perception is a bitch with a bow, rifle not such a problem).
If you don't like slogging around in the woods, as someone else posted, perhaps you should just go hunting at the local supermarket.
My $600 drone has a range of about 30km, and its a Quad, the most inefficient type. You aren't going to travel on foot further than my cheap drone can survey for you.
Top it off, a (quality) drone based on a sailplane design could go as low as $400-500 and add an order of magnitude to flight time/range. Hit up HobbyKing if you don't care about quality and maybe loosing it and you're talking a couple hundred bucks by using the Chinese rip off copies.
Well, other than his argument is retarded and anyone who isn't a rabid fanboy or 'stick it to the man, man' kind of douche doesn't really have a problem with Apple.
When you're in a tiny minority group with the ignorance level of the KKK, you're going to get treated as such. You people pick one thing, pull it out of context, and try to make it out as pure evil. You just make yourself look stupid outside of your own useless little clic
Ironic that you talk about bundling as being bad... your Internet pipe is a 'all or nothing bundle' by definition. You don't want that changed because theres a VERY good chance you'll (as a techie) be in a group that pays a fuckton more than others since you aren't going to be the standard generic type of user who helps share the cost of the services they use.
You will almost certainly be an outlier.
And they ALREADY CHARGED YOU.
When you pay you internet provider, do you not feel that your agreement with them is for a pipe to the Internet and that ALL traffic over it is created equal? Why do you seem to think you should not only pay for the bandwidth... but then pay extra because you use someone specific?
Why are you arguing the get charged twice for the same service?
So you apparently no nothing about proving a new aircraft.
Please show me any comparable aircraft in use in the modern world that didn't have the same sort of issues.
You won't find ANY military aircraft in ANY country on the planet that didn't have similar issues in its development, at least not since WWII.
You'll be able to find many commercial aircraft that haven't 'crashed' during development, but blow outs on landing? hahaha Even in commercial airliners, a blow out is 'normal'. Twice in a row? Unusual, but just. And I'm not talking about in development, I'm talking about that if you've flown very many airline flights, you've been on a flight with a blowout on landing, you just didn't know it.
They don't design these aircraft to not blow out tires, they design them to deal with blowouts because smacking rubber onto asphalt at 180mph is a metric fuckton of energy going into one little object. ANY imperfection will show up quickly, and its more or less impossible to not have some sort of imperfection.
I'm picking the tires as one to use as an example here, but the same is true pretty much across the board on other systems.
Its already in use by multiple air forces. The B version I think is the only one not in active duty at this point.
The F-22 and the F-35 fill different roles.
The F-22 is an air superiority fighter, the F-35 is an attack fighter. You send F-22s along with the F-35s on missions, the F-22s protect the F-35 from advanced air targets while they fly in heavily loaded and completely unable to perform any sort of meaningful air combat without dumping their fuel and weapons stores. The F-35 is like an F-16 configured for ground attack, the F-22 is like an F-16 configured for air superiority, though the F-35A in the proper configuration can maintain the same performance as the F-16 in an air superiority configuration, you're more or less unarmed at that point, which is also useless in combat.
The F-22 and F-35 are complimentary aircraft, not competing. You and many in the government could have saved yourselves a fuckload of ignorance if you listened to the people who fight wars when they told you why to make both. It wasn't until the things were in the air and the reality of what happens when you load a fighter aircraft down with a few tons of bombs that people outside the military got the clue.
Theres a reason you have multiple aircraft, just like theres a reason you have multiple types of foot soldier. Some are heavy armed and armored to take a pounding, some are fast as shit and light and are dead if you shoot them with a.22, and together they kick ass, alone, they can be annihilated by a well trained militia
So you're a gullible stupid moron cause I'm 100% certain that you haven't tested %0.00001 of the scientific principals that your modern life evolves on, you just have a belief that someone else did and verified it and what they told you was true.
You have faith in some silly little book you read by someone else that you probably don't even known... yet you act like someone else doing the the same thing is magically the exact opposite of what you do.
You need to learn the meaning of the words you use, because you're using belief wrong, and you'd be entirely unable to function in the environment (modern world or otherwise) without a significant amount of blind faith in your daily life.
One day, you might actually start thinking and being analytical, but what you're doing here is rehashing what someone else wrote and someone else's beliefs as your own. You're not only a hypocrite, your an incredible unoriginal one at that.
Creationists maybe misguided and ignorant about reality... but so are you. Don't look in the mirror, you'll realize that you're the exact type of person you dislike so much.
Asking where god came from is like asking what came before time, Tyson, Hawking, and Grampy doesn't know the answer to either of those questions. Some things are beyond us right now, kiddo. Neither science nor religion answers every question.
Its REALLY fucking scary though that you seem to think religion has lots of unanswered questions, but science has magically got it all wrapped up, then why do we still have scientists?
Religion has no place in science, because the definition of science the opposite of faith more or less.
The two, are not, however mutually exclusive
Catholics believe in evolution! Did your mind just fucking back flip into oblivion or something? Do you know who came up with the Big Bang theory? Do you know who the astronomers were during the dark ages? Go Google it, then come back when you pick your exploded head up off the floor and continue reading, but keep the dust pan near by, your head is going to pop again.
You want to hear some CRAZY shit... I learned about some of those things... IN A RELIGIOUS SCHOOL!@$!@@#%!#@% WHAT?! Another mind fuck for you, right?
You're an ignorant hypocrite who treats science more like a religion than most religious people I know, else you're going to show me your experiments where you've proven most scientific theories yourself...
instead of just reading what some one wrote in some silly old book
Unless you can show me your experiment logs... your just another religious idiot who isn't even bright enough to realize his religion is one that he preaches about not being religious. What a joke, we're talking right up there with Westbro church kind of hypocrisy you're spitting out.
All data is anecdotal evidence until it is confirmed, so yes, the plural of anecdote is data in many cases, but hey, why let the real world and real science get in the way of screaming some tag line you heard from someone else that you don't even actually understand, right?
I've never heard this kind of spew either and if you think about it, anyone who knows that much about evolution to be able to even discuss the difference between micro and macro... isn't going to be telling you they believe in the 'special creationism' crap either since they've already got enough knowledge to know better.
The reality of it is, living in a rather religious area of NC (I was born in Edmond OK though:), I've never once heard anyone that even remotely believe in creationism like slashdot seems to think... i.e.
I've never met anyone who thinks the earth is ACTUALLY 6000 years old OR that evolution isn't real. Some of them may puppet the response from church 'god created the earth' but when you get right down to it and actually have a discussion with anyone, the truth comes out and I've not ran into anyone who ever actually had a problem with evolution.
Yes, these people do exist, but I'm almost certain that 100% of those people who are loud mouth blow hards who screw your perception.
Outside of slashdot, no body even talks about creationism in the real world except these wacko nut jobs, all 10 or 12 of them.
I do find it interesting however, that many in science do like to push the issue with 'creationists', to goad them into an argument.
Ironic that these people are trying to insult and degrade people for having faith... yet the same people have never split an atom, seen a quark or even the test data to show their existence... but they have no problem taking someone else's (that they also, have never even met) word for it as truth and indisputable (which is contrary to scientific principles in the first damn place)...
Both sides of this 'debate' or 'argument' over creationism are a bunch of religious fucks who can't accept that someone else has a different viewpoint, and that includes every scientist that feels the need to go out of their way to mention any religious context in their science.
How many A-Bombs has Tyson built? None, but he god damn sure has FAITH they can vaporize his black ass and mine into plasma.
Mentioning IT or creationism on the show was bad fucking form for Tyson and it was fucking obnoxious when Sagen used Cosmos to push his atheistic views on others as well, that is not fucking what science is about, leave your religious discussion at church assholes, and that includes those of you in the cult of science or the church of atheism. No offense to normal atheists who don't feel the need to make everyone else believe what they believe or insult them for thinking differently./rant
I don't know any actual christians who think God has spoken to them directly.
Most churches even say prayers in a way that 'asks' for 'god' to listen, implying that god does not always listen to them personally either.
But, its amusing that you're talking about Creationists think... and I bet you've never actually met one.
I no longer follow the church, but was raised catholic and have many friends who still believe in god, but none of them (most of which are non-catholics) believe in creationism as something that happened 6000 years ago or whatever the fuck it gets lumped into.
So how is it that you, someone who is clearly anti-religous, has had some up close and personal heart to hearts with these mythical 'creationists' that seem to be destroying science even though it seems to be nothing more than a handful of outspoken assholes who don't really actually do anything other than scream about creationism while the rest of us (religious and non-religious alike) look at them in shock and laughter...
You seriously just lumped EVERY religion in the world into believing in Jesus and his teachings? So I guess everyone is now either an atheist or a christian? The Jews are going to be fucking pissed! I can't imagine the others who don't believe anything special about the bible are happy now either.
Talk about not knowing anything at all about a subject, wow.
Perhaps you should refrain from quoting the bible since you clearly haven't bothered to read the quote you are referring to and have gotten it from someone else and seem to not know anything at all about religion in general.
You're more or less exactly the same as retarded creationists, you're doing the same thing, but you think its okay because you're making things up for your team!
In the bible slavery, polygamy, genocide are all fine.
Holy fucking shit do you need to work on your reading comprehension skills if THATS what you think from reading the bible.
I get that you might have some difficulty accepting that its not to be taken literally, its a common disorder among techies, we have a difficult time accepting that not everything means exactly what it says sometimes since we tend to work in technical absolutes as much as possible... but if you are so utterly stupid that you think it 'approves' of those things then I realize I'm wrong, you're not that stupid, you're that ignorant.
I'm guessing you've probably never opened anyone and actually read it, have you?
Slashdot Mirror
Not within 72-48 hours of when you intend to go hunting in most every state in the US, including Alaska.
It is most certainly illegal to use planes for spotting in most places.
You do realize that a deer can easily kill a person, right? Hand to Hand combat with a moose or deer buck would be less fair than shooting one with a gun. They have every advantage over you in an unarmed contest. EVERY advantage.
So its perfectly okay to kill a cow in captivity to eat, but hunting a wild animal is different?
How does a food assistance program change anything? People still eat meat, regardless of wether it comes from captivity or the wild.
The difference is, a poor person can far easier go hunting than can get government assistance in some places. I'm speaking from experience having lived the government cheese before, if you know what I mean. (Do they still do cheese even? Its been 30 years). I've lived in places were the government and all handouts combined did not help 25% of the people who were qualified to get it.
You live in a nice comfy world and think that the government just protects everyone and makes everything roses ... you are ridiculously mistaken about what its like being poor. Obama didn't magically fix everything with government handouts, sorry. You need to get out into the real world.
In Alaska, its a legal requirement that if you hit an animal and kill it, you MUST notify authorities so that it can be processed for those who need food and can't afford it.
Then there haven't been any real men for 150-200k years, because thats how long we know we've been using tools to kill, possibly even longer.
slogging around through forests or grasslands all day is no picnic.
Then one can safely argue that you picked the wrong hobby, didn't you?
I used to go bow hunting with my father just to slog around in the woods with him, rarely did I actually get a kill (No depth perception is a bitch with a bow, rifle not such a problem).
If you don't like slogging around in the woods, as someone else posted, perhaps you should just go hunting at the local supermarket.
My $600 drone has a range of about 30km, and its a Quad, the most inefficient type. You aren't going to travel on foot further than my cheap drone can survey for you.
Top it off, a (quality) drone based on a sailplane design could go as low as $400-500 and add an order of magnitude to flight time/range. Hit up HobbyKing if you don't care about quality and maybe loosing it and you're talking a couple hundred bucks by using the Chinese rip off copies.
Because you can run any service on any hypervisor ... magically ... on their cloud ... it will also magically cure all the worlds ills.
Marketing douche bags, I suspect 'works together' means that they have network connectivity.
Well, other than his argument is retarded and anyone who isn't a rabid fanboy or 'stick it to the man, man' kind of douche doesn't really have a problem with Apple.
When you're in a tiny minority group with the ignorance level of the KKK, you're going to get treated as such. You people pick one thing, pull it out of context, and try to make it out as pure evil. You just make yourself look stupid outside of your own useless little clic
Ironic that you talk about bundling as being bad ... your Internet pipe is a 'all or nothing bundle' by definition. You don't want that changed because theres a VERY good chance you'll (as a techie) be in a group that pays a fuckton more than others since you aren't going to be the standard generic type of user who helps share the cost of the services they use.
You will almost certainly be an outlier.
And they ALREADY CHARGED YOU.
When you pay you internet provider, do you not feel that your agreement with them is for a pipe to the Internet and that ALL traffic over it is created equal? Why do you seem to think you should not only pay for the bandwidth ... but then pay extra because you use someone specific?
Why are you arguing the get charged twice for the same service?
Could be just a movie in general, doesn't have to be propaganda.
Hollywood used to do stuff like this all the time, it wasn't because we were actually going to blow up a russian sub.
So you apparently no nothing about proving a new aircraft.
Please show me any comparable aircraft in use in the modern world that didn't have the same sort of issues.
You won't find ANY military aircraft in ANY country on the planet that didn't have similar issues in its development, at least not since WWII.
You'll be able to find many commercial aircraft that haven't 'crashed' during development, but blow outs on landing? hahaha Even in commercial airliners, a blow out is 'normal'. Twice in a row? Unusual, but just. And I'm not talking about in development, I'm talking about that if you've flown very many airline flights, you've been on a flight with a blowout on landing, you just didn't know it.
They don't design these aircraft to not blow out tires, they design them to deal with blowouts because smacking rubber onto asphalt at 180mph is a metric fuckton of energy going into one little object. ANY imperfection will show up quickly, and its more or less impossible to not have some sort of imperfection.
I'm picking the tires as one to use as an example here, but the same is true pretty much across the board on other systems.
Its already in use by multiple air forces. The B version I think is the only one not in active duty at this point.
The F-22 and the F-35 fill different roles.
The F-22 is an air superiority fighter, the F-35 is an attack fighter. You send F-22s along with the F-35s on missions, the F-22s protect the F-35 from advanced air targets while they fly in heavily loaded and completely unable to perform any sort of meaningful air combat without dumping their fuel and weapons stores. The F-35 is like an F-16 configured for ground attack, the F-22 is like an F-16 configured for air superiority, though the F-35A in the proper configuration can maintain the same performance as the F-16 in an air superiority configuration, you're more or less unarmed at that point, which is also useless in combat.
The F-22 and F-35 are complimentary aircraft, not competing. You and many in the government could have saved yourselves a fuckload of ignorance if you listened to the people who fight wars when they told you why to make both. It wasn't until the things were in the air and the reality of what happens when you load a fighter aircraft down with a few tons of bombs that people outside the military got the clue.
Theres a reason you have multiple aircraft, just like theres a reason you have multiple types of foot soldier. Some are heavy armed and armored to take a pounding, some are fast as shit and light and are dead if you shoot them with a .22, and together they kick ass, alone, they can be annihilated by a well trained militia
No, and neither do you, because no one that matters ever said anything like that.
things that it implied that it would find so abhorrent that it would never consider doing
We have two official agencies who's charter is defined as spying on other nations ... And a third that does it under the flag of immigration.
I'm not sure who you've been listening to but if you think the US pretends not to spy you really are unaware of the world around you.
So you're a gullible stupid moron cause I'm 100% certain that you haven't tested %0.00001 of the scientific principals that your modern life evolves on, you just have a belief that someone else did and verified it and what they told you was true.
You have faith in some silly little book you read by someone else that you probably don't even known ... yet you act like someone else doing the the same thing is magically the exact opposite of what you do.
You need to learn the meaning of the words you use, because you're using belief wrong, and you'd be entirely unable to function in the environment (modern world or otherwise) without a significant amount of blind faith in your daily life.
One day, you might actually start thinking and being analytical, but what you're doing here is rehashing what someone else wrote and someone else's beliefs as your own. You're not only a hypocrite, your an incredible unoriginal one at that.
Creationists maybe misguided and ignorant about reality ... but so are you. Don't look in the mirror, you'll realize that you're the exact type of person you dislike so much.
Asking where god came from is like asking what came before time, Tyson, Hawking, and Grampy doesn't know the answer to either of those questions. Some things are beyond us right now, kiddo. Neither science nor religion answers every question.
Its REALLY fucking scary though that you seem to think religion has lots of unanswered questions, but science has magically got it all wrapped up, then why do we still have scientists?
The whole problem is that people are questioning the system.
In no universe is 'questioning the system' a bad thing or a problem. That is the very basis for science.
Blindly following something stupid is entirely different than questioning the system.
Science has no problem being in a church.
Religion has no place in science, because the definition of science the opposite of faith more or less.
The two, are not, however mutually exclusive
Catholics believe in evolution! Did your mind just fucking back flip into oblivion or something? Do you know who came up with the Big Bang theory? Do you know who the astronomers were during the dark ages? Go Google it, then come back when you pick your exploded head up off the floor and continue reading, but keep the dust pan near by, your head is going to pop again.
You want to hear some CRAZY shit ... I learned about some of those things ... IN A RELIGIOUS SCHOOL!@$!@@#%!#@% WHAT?! Another mind fuck for you, right?
You're an ignorant hypocrite who treats science more like a religion than most religious people I know, else you're going to show me your experiments where you've proven most scientific theories yourself ...
instead of just reading what some one wrote in some silly old book
Unless you can show me your experiment logs ... your just another religious idiot who isn't even bright enough to realize his religion is one that he preaches about not being religious. What a joke, we're talking right up there with Westbro church kind of hypocrisy you're spitting out.
research != science, learn the difference
All data is anecdotal evidence until it is confirmed, so yes, the plural of anecdote is data in many cases, but hey, why let the real world and real science get in the way of screaming some tag line you heard from someone else that you don't even actually understand, right?
I've never heard this kind of spew either and if you think about it, anyone who knows that much about evolution to be able to even discuss the difference between micro and macro ... isn't going to be telling you they believe in the 'special creationism' crap either since they've already got enough knowledge to know better.
The reality of it is, living in a rather religious area of NC (I was born in Edmond OK though :), I've never once heard anyone that even remotely believe in creationism like slashdot seems to think ... i.e.
I've never met anyone who thinks the earth is ACTUALLY 6000 years old OR that evolution isn't real. Some of them may puppet the response from church 'god created the earth' but when you get right down to it and actually have a discussion with anyone, the truth comes out and I've not ran into anyone who ever actually had a problem with evolution.
Yes, these people do exist, but I'm almost certain that 100% of those people who are loud mouth blow hards who screw your perception.
Outside of slashdot, no body even talks about creationism in the real world except these wacko nut jobs, all 10 or 12 of them.
I do find it interesting however, that many in science do like to push the issue with 'creationists', to goad them into an argument.
Ironic that these people are trying to insult and degrade people for having faith ... yet the same people have never split an atom, seen a quark or even the test data to show their existence ... but they have no problem taking someone else's (that they also, have never even met) word for it as truth and indisputable (which is contrary to scientific principles in the first damn place) ...
Both sides of this 'debate' or 'argument' over creationism are a bunch of religious fucks who can't accept that someone else has a different viewpoint, and that includes every scientist that feels the need to go out of their way to mention any religious context in their science.
How many A-Bombs has Tyson built? None, but he god damn sure has FAITH they can vaporize his black ass and mine into plasma.
Mentioning IT or creationism on the show was bad fucking form for Tyson and it was fucking obnoxious when Sagen used Cosmos to push his atheistic views on others as well, that is not fucking what science is about, leave your religious discussion at church assholes, and that includes those of you in the cult of science or the church of atheism. No offense to normal atheists who don't feel the need to make everyone else believe what they believe or insult them for thinking differently. /rant
I don't know any actual christians who think God has spoken to them directly.
Most churches even say prayers in a way that 'asks' for 'god' to listen, implying that god does not always listen to them personally either.
But, its amusing that you're talking about Creationists think ... and I bet you've never actually met one.
I no longer follow the church, but was raised catholic and have many friends who still believe in god, but none of them (most of which are non-catholics) believe in creationism as something that happened 6000 years ago or whatever the fuck it gets lumped into.
So how is it that you, someone who is clearly anti-religous, has had some up close and personal heart to hearts with these mythical 'creationists' that seem to be destroying science even though it seems to be nothing more than a handful of outspoken assholes who don't really actually do anything other than scream about creationism while the rest of us (religious and non-religious alike) look at them in shock and laughter ...
Pardon my ignorance, but is the n silent in the rest of the world or do we just say it wrong, its always been Plate-O to me, is that not the case?
but didn't their own book
You seriously just lumped EVERY religion in the world into believing in Jesus and his teachings? So I guess everyone is now either an atheist or a christian? The Jews are going to be fucking pissed! I can't imagine the others who don't believe anything special about the bible are happy now either.
Talk about not knowing anything at all about a subject, wow.
Perhaps you should refrain from quoting the bible since you clearly haven't bothered to read the quote you are referring to and have gotten it from someone else and seem to not know anything at all about religion in general.
You're more or less exactly the same as retarded creationists, you're doing the same thing, but you think its okay because you're making things up for your team!
In the bible slavery, polygamy, genocide are all fine.
Holy fucking shit do you need to work on your reading comprehension skills if THATS what you think from reading the bible.
I get that you might have some difficulty accepting that its not to be taken literally, its a common disorder among techies, we have a difficult time accepting that not everything means exactly what it says sometimes since we tend to work in technical absolutes as much as possible ... but if you are so utterly stupid that you think it 'approves' of those things then I realize I'm wrong, you're not that stupid, you're that ignorant.
I'm guessing you've probably never opened anyone and actually read it, have you?