I am a fundamentalist Bible-believing Christian, but that doesn't mean that I checked my intelligence at the door.
No, no, that is what that means. With no real evidence, you decided that a really old book contains the absolute truth about everything. If anything contradicts that book it simply must be wrong no matter what. No matter how good the evidence.
intelligence (n-tl'-jns) pronunciation
n.
1. The capacity to acquire and apply knowledge.
2. The faculty of thought and reason.
Your comment was fucking hilarious. Mind if I use it as a springboard to make a point?
Copyright --which, just so we're all on the same page, is the legal recognition of natural property rights --does not prohibit quotation. To the contrary, the law specifically states that quoting a work for the purposes of commenting on it is not a violation of the work's creator's property rights.
That seems to be a point on which ever so many people have been misled. I figure it couldn't hurt to be explicitly clear about it."
...but you're not doing it right. Maybe if you paced yourself and only reloaded Slashdot 40 hours a week, you could sign up for an account, eh Anonymous Coward?
That was a verbal bludgening. An severe intellectual beating with a clue by four. I salute you.
Re:Top Five reasons why the space program should b
on
Apollo 12 at 35
·
· Score: 1
Population is NOT a good reason to colonize space.
Think about it. Billions of people. We will not be able to move that many people off world, it's just logistically obsurd. If north america were complete empty, think about how difficult it would be to thin out china by moving them to America. It'd be almost impossible, and that's just an ocean.
It'd be useful for the survival of the human race to not all be on one planet, but to think we're going to move a significant part of the population to colonies is crazy.
California being in debt is a huge problem, gets lots of attention, in need of desperate measures and so on, but the federal government being MASSIVELY in debt isn't.
Is there a reason for this or is it just because republicans haven't been successful with the federal budget? (not trolling)
If so, blah blah blah piece of blah blah blah repercussions?
In other words, what question do you never get asked but wish you got asked? An employer asked me this at an interview, and I had a really good answer, which I wouldn't have been able to give if he hadn't asked such an open question. I bet you have a really good answer (and question) too.
Not to downplay Burt Rutan's acomplishment, but he didn't come anywhere close to getting into orbit. He just did what NASA did 50 years ago with the X-15 rocketplane.
SpaceShipOne isn't anywhere close to replacing the shuttle, sending a probe to mars, anything. All it can do is barely touch space.
Except LEO is about 17,000 MPH, and this thing can only go about 7200. And a scramjet doesn't work until you're already going supersonic speeds.
So what you'd need for this craft is a jet engine or rocket to get you fast enough for the scramjet to kick in, which would then get you to 7,000 MPH, when a rocket has to kick in to get you the other 10,000 MPH and out of the atmosphere.
Basically such a craft would have to carry a regular jet engine, a scramjet, and a rocket, Or perhaps just a scramjet and a liquid fuel rocket to get you fast enough for the scramjet, when it would turn off and turn back off to get out of the atmosphere.
It could be a staged vehicle, however. A giant jetplane that drops the scramjet/rocket craft at supersonic speeds, which accellerates under scramjet, drops the scramjet and continues on under rocket power.
It could work, but it certainly doesn't make anything easy, nor eliminate the need for rockets.
Damn right it's hard. What's more, it's pointless.
Animated movies have appeal not because they're real looking, but because they're not. They can do things with their characters live actors can't do. When you make the characters look like humans, pushing it that far doesn't work anymore, and so you're trying to duplicate reality, you get it a tiny bit off, and it looks terrible.
For this film what they really should have done is do something like lord of the rings, harry potter, or sky captain. You can have the fantastic fantasy worlds with live actors now which always looks better.
That, or do something like the incredibles, which is very cartoony looking, so has more appeal. Those characters are really only human in name. Put one side by side a real human, it doesn't look remotely like a person any more than a 2d cartoon does. And it works.
I'll admit I was wrong about the gay marriage ban being a south thing (more on that in a second), but I still mean what I said about the south dragging us down. We don't have a fiscally conservative party, just one that pretends to be fiscally conservative and and is socially so conservative to be regressive. Being that I'm socially liberal and fiscally conservative, who am I to vote for? Not the republicans, that's for sure. And they still kick and scream and bitch and whine and moan about any progress whatsoever.
I have no problem with the midwest, I wonder why they voted for a gay marriage ban. I don't see any way you can be against gay marriage without being religiously motivated, and I always thought the south was the only region that didn't understand the need for seperation of church and state.
I, too, am getting really pissed with the red states, meaning (for me) the deep south.
Why is it, that every time we try to make any progress at all, whether it be the end of slavery, civil rights for blacks, women's suffrage, religious rights, gay rights, ANYTHING, we always have to drag them, kicking and screaming about the dire, dire consequences? Now 11 of them have voted to Ban gay marriage.
You do realize that history won't look back at this as the heroic defense of christianity any more than your fight against civil rights was a heroic defense of society? Why do you insist on forcing your beliefs on others?
You've turned the republican party into a tool of the christian right, something that is no longer fiscally conservative in any way, shape or form. Congrats on moving America backwards. Maybe you'd be happier in a theocracy. Just look at the existing theocracies of world, Iran for instance. THAT is the direction you're moving us.
What if you wrap the cat in a piece of paper that has been formed to make a Moebius strip, butter the other side of the animal, then tie it together to another cat? I suspect this may be the way to create time travel or a perpetual motion machine.
You're theory is good, except that it fails to take into account the sheer impossiblity of attaching anything to a cat.
....who looked at "iota" capitalized for a second and thought it was an acronym, then spent a few seconds trying to figure out what it was? Iota doesn't really look like a real word written out, especially capitalized.
That was wonderful. Shows like crossfire aren't actual political debate, the guy on the left is a democrat shill and the guy on the right is a republican shill.
The guy on the right can never say something like, "hey, warmongering isn't a conservative value" or "You're not really being fiscally conservative, bush". They just repeat republican rhetoric.
Same with the guy on the left, who isn't actually on the left, but just a democrat hack.
Basically, both of them are just repeating their party's arguments, which leaves huge blind spots for us, the people. Until this changes we'll never end up with not voting for the lesser of two evils, and democrats will never be held responsible for their actions BY democrats, and republicans will never be held responsible by conservatives. Also, we'll never hear any real arguments but just stupid stuff like kerry and bush's vietnam service. Like John Stewart said, "I asked him.. but I didn't care". Or like the Bill O'Reilly vibrator story, which has nothing to do with anything.
The politicians don't care, becuase the only people they ever get in trouble with are the opposition, who's support they don't have anyway.
Does anybody else get the impression that he's some really annoying guy trying desperately to impress you while reading the article? I really don't like Barry's writing.
See, I find the above absolutely hilarious, since libertarians want to DE-regulate everything, and making a law that you can't poll people would be completely against their principles.
On a side note, the problem I have with libertarian ideology is the same problem that i have with communism ideology: It just doesn't account for human nature.
Slashdot Mirror
Otherwise, why not assume the universe was made ten minutes ago? By Satan? As a practical joke?
....
Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter. I'm joining elpacolocoism, right now!
I am a fundamentalist Bible-believing Christian, but that doesn't mean that I checked my intelligence at the door.
No, no, that is what that means. With no real evidence, you decided that a really old book contains the absolute truth about everything. If anything contradicts that book it simply must be wrong no matter what. No matter how good the evidence.
intelligence (n-tl'-jns) pronunciation n.
1. The capacity to acquire and apply knowledge.
2. The faculty of thought and reason.
I'd say you are sorely lacking in both of these.
Your comment was fucking hilarious. Mind if I use it as a springboard to make a point?
Copyright --which, just so we're all on the same page, is the legal recognition of natural property rights --does not prohibit quotation. To the contrary, the law specifically states that quoting a work for the purposes of commenting on it is not a violation of the work's creator's property rights.
That seems to be a point on which ever so many people have been misled. I figure it couldn't hurt to be explicitly clear about it."
- Leo McGarry
...but you're not doing it right. Maybe if you paced yourself and only reloaded Slashdot 40 hours a week, you could sign up for an account, eh Anonymous Coward?
hehehehehehehe
I like it!
Sorry, forgot to close my 'bold' tag.
I don't see what the big deal is about violence in videogames.
We've had violent entertainment in every society for the entirety of human history. From this, do you surmise that:
1: Violent entertainment is making people violent?
2: That modern society is somehow "sick" for wanting violent entertainment?
3: That we're naturally violent and violent entertainment is a socially acceptable outlet for our violent tandencies?
I think 3 is the only one that makes any sense at all.
That was a verbal bludgening. An severe intellectual beating with a clue by four. I salute you.
Population is NOT a good reason to colonize space.
Think about it. Billions of people. We will not be able to move that many people off world, it's just logistically obsurd. If north america were complete empty, think about how difficult it would be to thin out china by moving them to America. It'd be almost impossible, and that's just an ocean.
It'd be useful for the survival of the human race to not all be on one planet, but to think we're going to move a significant part of the population to colonies is crazy.
California being in debt is a huge problem, gets lots of attention, in need of desperate measures and so on, but the federal government being MASSIVELY in debt isn't.
Is there a reason for this or is it just because republicans haven't been successful with the federal budget? (not trolling)
Blah blah blah motivation blah blah inspiration blah blah millions blah blah blah blah fame blah blah?
If so, blah blah blah piece of blah blah blah repercussions?
In other words, what question do you never get asked but wish you got asked? An employer asked me this at an interview, and I had a really good answer, which I wouldn't have been able to give if he hadn't asked such an open question. I bet you have a really good answer (and question) too.
Not to downplay Burt Rutan's acomplishment, but he didn't come anywhere close to getting into orbit. He just did what NASA did 50 years ago with the X-15 rocketplane.
SpaceShipOne isn't anywhere close to replacing the shuttle, sending a probe to mars, anything. All it can do is barely touch space.
Except LEO is about 17,000 MPH, and this thing can only go about 7200. And a scramjet doesn't work until you're already going supersonic speeds.
So what you'd need for this craft is a jet engine or rocket to get you fast enough for the scramjet to kick in, which would then get you to 7,000 MPH, when a rocket has to kick in to get you the other 10,000 MPH and out of the atmosphere.
Basically such a craft would have to carry a regular jet engine, a scramjet, and a rocket, Or perhaps just a scramjet and a liquid fuel rocket to get you fast enough for the scramjet, when it would turn off and turn back off to get out of the atmosphere.
It could be a staged vehicle, however. A giant jetplane that drops the scramjet/rocket craft at supersonic speeds, which accellerates under scramjet, drops the scramjet and continues on under rocket power.
It could work, but it certainly doesn't make anything easy, nor eliminate the need for rockets.
Damn right it's hard. What's more, it's pointless.
Animated movies have appeal not because they're real looking, but because they're not. They can do things with their characters live actors can't do. When you make the characters look like humans, pushing it that far doesn't work anymore, and so you're trying to duplicate reality, you get it a tiny bit off, and it looks terrible.
For this film what they really should have done is do something like lord of the rings, harry potter, or sky captain. You can have the fantastic fantasy worlds with live actors now which always looks better.
That, or do something like the incredibles, which is very cartoony looking, so has more appeal. Those characters are really only human in name. Put one side by side a real human, it doesn't look remotely like a person any more than a 2d cartoon does. And it works.
Yes, at which point the south was mostly democrat. I'm not talking about republican VS democrat, I'm talking about the south.
Interesting. That's weird.
I'll admit I was wrong about the gay marriage ban being a south thing (more on that in a second), but I still mean what I said about the south dragging us down. We don't have a fiscally conservative party, just one that pretends to be fiscally conservative and and is socially so conservative to be regressive. Being that I'm socially liberal and fiscally conservative, who am I to vote for? Not the republicans, that's for sure. And they still kick and scream and bitch and whine and moan about any progress whatsoever.
I have no problem with the midwest, I wonder why they voted for a gay marriage ban. I don't see any way you can be against gay marriage without being religiously motivated, and I always thought the south was the only region that didn't understand the need for seperation of church and state.
I, too, am getting really pissed with the red states, meaning (for me) the deep south. Why is it, that every time we try to make any progress at all, whether it be the end of slavery, civil rights for blacks, women's suffrage, religious rights, gay rights, ANYTHING, we always have to drag them, kicking and screaming about the dire, dire consequences? Now 11 of them have voted to Ban gay marriage.
You do realize that history won't look back at this as the heroic defense of christianity any more than your fight against civil rights was a heroic defense of society? Why do you insist on forcing your beliefs on others?
You've turned the republican party into a tool of the christian right, something that is no longer fiscally conservative in any way, shape or form. Congrats on moving America backwards. Maybe you'd be happier in a theocracy. Just look at the existing theocracies of world, Iran for instance. THAT is the direction you're moving us.
What if you wrap the cat in a piece of paper that has been formed to make a Moebius strip, butter the other side of the animal, then tie it together to another cat? I suspect this may be the way to create time travel or a perpetual motion machine.
You're theory is good, except that it fails to take into account the sheer impossiblity of attaching anything to a cat.
....who looked at "iota" capitalized for a second and thought it was an acronym, then spent a few seconds trying to figure out what it was? Iota doesn't really look like a real word written out, especially capitalized.
That was wonderful. Shows like crossfire aren't actual political debate, the guy on the left is a democrat shill and the guy on the right is a republican shill.
The guy on the right can never say something like, "hey, warmongering isn't a conservative value" or "You're not really being fiscally conservative, bush". They just repeat republican rhetoric.
Same with the guy on the left, who isn't actually on the left, but just a democrat hack.
Basically, both of them are just repeating their party's arguments, which leaves huge blind spots for us, the people. Until this changes we'll never end up with not voting for the lesser of two evils, and democrats will never be held responsible for their actions BY democrats, and republicans will never be held responsible by conservatives. Also, we'll never hear any real arguments but just stupid stuff like kerry and bush's vietnam service. Like John Stewart said, "I asked him.. but I didn't care". Or like the Bill O'Reilly vibrator story, which has nothing to do with anything.
The politicians don't care, becuase the only people they ever get in trouble with are the opposition, who's support they don't have anyway.
Um, no it wasn't. It was really bad. Terrible, even. And 65% of critics will back me up.
"I don't any plans for the aftermath..."
And I don't any verb.
Does anybody else get the impression that he's some really annoying guy trying desperately to impress you while reading the article? I really don't like Barry's writing.
See, I find the above absolutely hilarious, since libertarians want to DE-regulate everything, and making a law that you can't poll people would be completely against their principles.
On a side note, the problem I have with libertarian ideology is the same problem that i have with communism ideology: It just doesn't account for human nature.
Clicky Clicky
Personally I agree, it's already dead. Voyager sucks, and theres not a big following of Enterprise. The last movie sucked.