Any gun nut who says a polite society is an armed society has never been shot over a disagreement. What?
Other way around, actually. An armed society is a polite society. Sooner or later, the impolite ones will get themselves shot. Call it evolution in action.
A hundred years ago & change (1870s+), guns were totally legal and common. Gunfights were not the 'norm' that Hollywood would have you believe.
The first part of 'On the Origin of Species' is deadly boring because Darwin went to a great deal of trouble to present an ironclad case for something completely obvious where two or three paragraphs might have done.
Obvious to us, not so obvious back then. Remember, Einstein had a helluva time selling E=MC2 because it wasn't as obvious then as it is today.
I like my 'One4All' URC-4021. Operates my sat dish reciever, my DVD player, & my 13 inch RCA VCR combo. Last time I changed my batteries in it was something like 5 or 6 years ago. Best 10 bucks I ever spent.
Yup. So is McCain. So is Clinton. So is Bush. So is everybody who stood for public office. Their job is to deflect shit away from their handlers. Want real change? Forget about getting to 'The Man', get to 'The Man's' handlers. Better yet, become one of the handlers.
The inexorable march of technology will render any litigation irrelevant.
Only if the MAFFIAA bleed money out faster than they can litigate more in to replace the loss. And just because a litigation is 'irrelevant' doesn't mean it's free to defend against.
There is no condition of novelty for copyright. Copyright law allows for independent creation of identical works. Of course it's unlikely, but if you just so happened to write or compose a "substantially similar" work as someone else, and it's clear you never had access to their work, you have not infringed.
OK, to be able to claim you independently noninfringingly created something, you have to prove that you A) have no access to any media, including a library card; B) never listened to a second of the radio; C) never saw a frame of TV; D) never saw a movie in the theatre; E) are totally tonedeaf so when somebody whistles something on the street as you walked by, it didn't influence you a bit.
Which was about the same as the Fossil's voting record - not good, biased across Party lines, business as usual. Limbaugh and Hannity forgot to tell us that their guy and girl were just as big a train wreck.
BO didn't promise "change for the better," he promised change, pure and simple. And change is what you have: BO is in the White House and Dubya isn't. What more do you expect?
A pony. Both sides have been piling so much horseshit for decades, there's GOT to be a pony in there someplace. Where is it?
First, the RIAA is basically irrelevant in this day and age.
I dunno about that. I'm thinking the lawsuits they're still filing, the strongarm tactics they're trying, they're still pretty damned relevant. Just not relevant in the sense you mean relevant.
Sure, legal pot, no Taxes/IRS and "liberty" as it's defined by libertarian wackos, sound great, but let's work in the real world. We had that. And it went all wrong.
When did we have this? If you're thinking pre-1912, I can categorically say that perhaps the US was better off with a small government, no Federal income tax, an isolationist foreign policy, and not a whole lot of military presense outside of our own hemisphere.
So, answer me this. What's so criminal about smoking a bowl in the privacy of my own home, zoning out in my recliner and vegging out on TV after snacking on everything in my fridge? Who gets hurt?
Every test costs the patient time, money & pain. Each test also costs the doctor/technician/lab/hospital/insurance company time, money & paperwork.
Yup. Around here, medical malpractice suits are rampant, so the doctor's liability insurance goes through the roof unless they order piles of tests to cover their asses. The patient's insurance pays for them, so they bitch about unneeded tests designed to 'fish' for things to look at even closer just in case something happens and the patient's survivors decide to sue.
End result, the lawyers make money defending and suing doctors.
What I don't like about 24/7 realtime monitoring of me is, the extreme likelyhood (on the order of 99%+) of my insurance carrier starting to dictate my life. I've been smoking for 40 years, no cancer in sight even though cancer tends to run in my family (colon & lymph rather than lung or throat or oral), but I know damned good and well that since according to statistics, I'm 4 times more likely to get lung cancer than somebody who doesn't, my insurance will demand I stop smoking right fucking now or face cancellation. Doesn't matter that I choose to smoke, that I accept the risks. After all, I have a 0.056% chance per year of getting lung cancer (169,400 cases per year, 300 million US citizens, easy math).
Pretty much, yeah. My first hints were cold sweats and a feeling that both ex-mother in laws were jumping up and down on my chest. My co-worker's first hints was watching me hit the floor in a daze.
Actually, the inefficency was supposed to apply to all three branches. They called it 'checks and balances'. The intention was, in theory, (and you can read up on that in 'The Federalist Papers'), keep the Federal government small, weak, and inoffensive. Let the States handle local stuff, the Feds handle national defense, and leave the citizens the hell alone to pursue life, liberty and happiness.
t's sad that your degree in religion, that you claim was earned by rigorous analysis of actual value, has certified you despite your willingness to call a Creationism Masters "education" and not "snake oil".
Thing is, he basically agrees with you, that 'Creationism' belongs in 'liberal arts' rather than science:
I have a minor in Religion from a Lutheran college, and while I don't see the point in granting a master's in Creationism outside of the liberal arts wing of academia, I will say that religion classes in general don't allow the sort of thing you describe at all.
As such, I consider him one of the saner ones of the bunch across the aisle.
I was talking about the claims religions make, are they predicting anything that explains some observations that we can't otherwise explain? I know that we might not currently have ways of testing their claims, but maybe one day we will.
None that I'm aware of. But consider the situation where somebody makes 10,000 predictions. Law of averages says, said person has to be right sometime. Now that person throws press conferences on his 'hits' and buries his 'misses', and spins it to where he's always 'right'. Does this make him a 'prophet'? I'm thinking, not.
Slashdot Mirror
Personally, I'd prefer a cigarette. They're still legal, aren't they? Halfasec, somebody's at the do
Other way around, actually. An armed society is a polite society. Sooner or later, the impolite ones will get themselves shot. Call it evolution in action.
A hundred years ago & change (1870s+), guns were totally legal and common. Gunfights were not the 'norm' that Hollywood would have you believe.
Yeah, when did it become illegal to fix a headache in school?
Obvious to us, not so obvious back then. Remember, Einstein had a helluva time selling E=MC2 because it wasn't as obvious then as it is today.
Kinda like Bakersfield (California) is like Juarez (Mexico) without the culture?
Gluegun a carbiner onto the remote and clip it to your beltloop.
I like my 'One4All' URC-4021. Operates my sat dish reciever, my DVD player, & my 13 inch RCA VCR combo. Last time I changed my batteries in it was something like 5 or 6 years ago. Best 10 bucks I ever spent.
So they keep telling me.
but if you listen to the Other Side, we *need* the energy.
QFT. However, if somebody decides I'm gonna be president, I decline the 'honor'. I've got enough problems, thankyouverymuchforplaying.
Yup. So is McCain. So is Clinton. So is Bush. So is everybody who stood for public office. Their job is to deflect shit away from their handlers. Want real change? Forget about getting to 'The Man', get to 'The Man's' handlers. Better yet, become one of the handlers.
Only if the MAFFIAA bleed money out faster than they can litigate more in to replace the loss. And just because a litigation is 'irrelevant' doesn't mean it's free to defend against.
OK, to be able to claim you independently noninfringingly created something, you have to prove that you A) have no access to any media, including a library card; B) never listened to a second of the radio; C) never saw a frame of TV; D) never saw a movie in the theatre; E) are totally tonedeaf so when somebody whistles something on the street as you walked by, it didn't influence you a bit.
Good luck.
Which was about the same as the Fossil's voting record - not good, biased across Party lines, business as usual. Limbaugh and Hannity forgot to tell us that their guy and girl were just as big a train wreck.
A pony. Both sides have been piling so much horseshit for decades, there's GOT to be a pony in there someplace. Where is it?
I dunno about that. I'm thinking the lawsuits they're still filing, the strongarm tactics they're trying, they're still pretty damned relevant. Just not relevant in the sense you mean relevant.
When did we have this? If you're thinking pre-1912, I can categorically say that perhaps the US was better off with a small government, no Federal income tax, an isolationist foreign policy, and not a whole lot of military presense outside of our own hemisphere.
So, answer me this. What's so criminal about smoking a bowl in the privacy of my own home, zoning out in my recliner and vegging out on TV after snacking on everything in my fridge? Who gets hurt?
Yeah, it says that in the Declaration of Independence. However, the basis and underpinnings of all US law is the Constitution. Two different critters.
Funny, I didn't know I was on Medicare. Coulda swore I was on Blue Cross.
Yup. Around here, medical malpractice suits are rampant, so the doctor's liability insurance goes through the roof unless they order piles of tests to cover their asses. The patient's insurance pays for them, so they bitch about unneeded tests designed to 'fish' for things to look at even closer just in case something happens and the patient's survivors decide to sue.
End result, the lawyers make money defending and suing doctors.
What I don't like about 24/7 realtime monitoring of me is, the extreme likelyhood (on the order of 99%+) of my insurance carrier starting to dictate my life. I've been smoking for 40 years, no cancer in sight even though cancer tends to run in my family (colon & lymph rather than lung or throat or oral), but I know damned good and well that since according to statistics, I'm 4 times more likely to get lung cancer than somebody who doesn't, my insurance will demand I stop smoking right fucking now or face cancellation. Doesn't matter that I choose to smoke, that I accept the risks. After all, I have a 0.056% chance per year of getting lung cancer (169,400 cases per year, 300 million US citizens, easy math).
Pretty much, yeah. My first hints were cold sweats and a feeling that both ex-mother in laws were jumping up and down on my chest. My co-worker's first hints was watching me hit the floor in a daze.
Didn't last a generation, of course.
Why? By not nailing down the hardware side, Microsoft gets to shift the blame if something goes wrong. It says so right in the EULA.
Thing is, he basically agrees with you, that 'Creationism' belongs in 'liberal arts' rather than science:
As such, I consider him one of the saner ones of the bunch across the aisle.
I'm just wondering when they'll reveal the fossil of the guy found trying to bury human remains among the dinosaur bones.
None that I'm aware of. But consider the situation where somebody makes 10,000 predictions. Law of averages says, said person has to be right sometime. Now that person throws press conferences on his 'hits' and buries his 'misses', and spins it to where he's always 'right'. Does this make him a 'prophet'? I'm thinking, not.