1. You philistine, that is Art . Kudos to you, valiant troll on your glorious FP
How dare you! This is not art.
Judging by the disconnected and nonsensical statements, this can only be Dinesh "gays are ruining traditional marriage" D'Souza practicing for how he's going to explain away his rather blatant and highly hypocritical adultery.
His mistress is probably right now going down on him. Doesn't mean he's not down on his luck. Show some respect.
It helps to have AMD around, but doesn't prevent antitrust issues. Even if AMD has around 20% of market share in consumer desktops, Intel can still be dragged over the coals for anti-competitive behaviours. Any company's ability to use anti-competitive measures pretty much depends on them being dominent, in either the market in question or another that would grant them a significant advantage. e.g. John's Washing Machines using their market dominance in washing machines to break in to the toaster market by refusing to washing machines to electrical stores that sell competing toasters - even though at the time John's Toasters are about as popular as cholera.
No doubt though, having an alternative source of x86 and x86-64 chips does help intel's general case against anti-trust measures. AMD could vanish tomorrow, and Intel could remain completely free of anti-trust issues in relation to x86 and x86-64.
The article makes it sound like a plain clothed officer was chasing the guy. I don't know about you, but if some random guy started harassing me on the street and following me when I'm trying to get away from him I'd be concerned. You don't know if a plain clothed officer really is a police officer or just a crazy nut out to mess with people.
Yeah, as a gang member on parole I'd certainly pull a gun. What else am I expected to do, ask for ID?
The reason most libertarianism is easy to dismiss as magical thinking is that it requires everyone to think magically for it to work. Specifically, this weird assertion than as soon as all the regulation is removed, everyone will magically exist in a state of perfect information and understanding of all industries and services that they come in contact with.
Nah, libertarianism doesn't preclude cooperation between likeminded consumers. I find 3 million people who feel the same way as I do. Realising that we can't all head down to the offices of the company in question, we'll choose a small number of us to act as representatives. Recognising that these representatives may not necessarily have expertise in pharmacology, we'll also choose people to act as expert advisers. Of course this bears no relation to a government or a regulator.
That's the only way I can see the complete de-regulation approach working. The alternative is, as you say, everyone becomes omniscient, and has the personal resources to actually make corporation x sit up and pay attention.
I feel for Mundie. My construction business went through something similar. After many happy years of designing and building sub-standard residential properties, we were caught off-guard when people began to exploit the tendency of our houses to catch fire, explode, and be easily burgled.
As the largest builder of houses, we were a common target. We lost our lead in commercial buildings because we had to devote a lot of resources to learning how to build houses that lasted more than a few days.
it's easy in hindsight to say that electrical insulation is useful, or that gas pipes should not leak, or that front doors be made of something more sturdy than cardboard. Back then we had no reason to assume that anything of those things were ever going to be important, and I assume everyone built houses that were prone to sudden annihilation.
We're not entirely blameless. This would never have happened if people had kept naked flames at least 30ft away from the houses. The cardboard doors on the houses not at the time exploding and/or burning, was only an issue because criminals were trying to burgle houses.
What you're basically arguing is: if it doesn't argue against it, it must be for it. You're an idiot.
Worse than that, he's not even wrong! What the hell is Darwinian Naturalism? Whatever it may be, who's arguing that it encourages beheading, and why is the burden of proof not on that person?
What he has there is a strawman argument, based on the naturalistic fallacy and fuck knows what else. Empiric, what's your stance on Newtonian Naturalism, and can you explain how it doesn't condone artificial means of defying gravity? I'd also be interested in knowing precisely how atheism necessarily leads to murder - not even mass murder, just one murder. Here's a hint, the "god doesn't exist, so we can do what we want" argument doesn't work. The reverse - belief in gods, doesn't necessarily lead to murder. How about if the god in question abhors people who wear orange shoes? Let's get Biblical and say that this god specifically calls for the death of such people. Can the necessarily lead to murder? Of course it can. Could I point to many examples of "god breathed" scripture that necessarily lead to bigotry and murder? Definitely.
Could my failure to believe in this god necessarily lead to murder? No, it takes something other than this basic lack of belief.
I wondered why, on waking up thus morning, I felt safer - as if a great threat had been removed from the world. Well done, Sweden, and may I compliment your recent applications of extradition. I know Ben Stiller can rely upon you to execute international justice if anyone should slate his movies.
Related technologies used for translating German in to English, particularly in movies and comics, yield similar oddities. It seems at least partly due to the speaker's level of agitation. i.e. Hans von Wurstatem speaks English all of the time, except for the occasional "schnell", "achtung", "mein gott" or "teufel" on noticing that Charley Bourne* has tossed a grenade right in the filthy hun's bunker.
* Americans can substitue Sergeant Rock or Wonder Woman. Whatever floats your boat.
There are news sites I visit, and normally read just a single article, and there are those I'd tend to click around. BBC News is pretty handy for the little side-bar things that provide some background to the story.
Some have found a great way to get rid of me in the form of repeated offers to download their app. The Slashdot mobile alpha does this, despite my having dismissed the offer many times in the past few weeks.
This isn't about banning smokers from sitting at their desk, enjoying a visit to flavour country with you involuntarily riding shotgun. It's about wholesale refusing to hire people for something they would be doing in personal time outside of work and during breaks. I'm giving up smoking myself, so I've become a little sensitive to the smell of cigarettes on people. Even so, it's pretty light among people who are smoking outdoors and wearing fresh clothes daily. The smell doesn't in itself constitute a health risk. Excessive odour should be dealt with the same way as it would if your co-worker decided that one shower per week was perfectly adequate for non air-conditioned office in Phoenix.
I'm guessing peanut eaters don't need to blow peanuts all over you. The impression I have is of a pedantic irritant who'd be on the phone to the cops on sighting a guy on a bench in a park across the road, enjoying a bag of Planters. Okay, so he's eating Monster Munch - doesn't matter. Those corn snacks probably contain "peanut particles" and other things discoverable only through the sciences of homeopathy and divination by entrails.
But in the last 100 years, experience with officially atheist governments have not produced happy outcomes, by and large. Indeed, they have been terribly bloody.
But how is it fair to describe those countries exclusively as being "atheist governments" as if atheism was the driving force behind their actions? Can you draw a necessary connection between atheism and the ideologies that drove those regimes? What you're doing is the equivalent of saying that Iran's government is theistic, so that explains why they oppress women. Theism itself doesn't necessary imply actions, as one could be a theist and not act upon it in any way. However, theism as a term carries more baggage than atheism. How many theists have gods to which they ascribe no attributes?
Let's consider a government who outlaws theism. Let's say that this government is atheistic in nature, but how does a personal lack of belief in gods lead to the notion that all theistic belief should be purged? No, that's something else.
Unless you can draw a necessary connection from atheism, what you have there is as useful as stating that a lack of interest in sport is causing a decline in tennis in favour of football.
The trouble is, the followers of Jesus don't tend to follow his teachings, but rather those of their church.
In fairness, his teachings are nigh on impossible to follow in their entirety. If they did follow his teachings verbatim, and everyone converted to this approach (including non-Christians), civilisation would collapse as people essentially just sit around waiting for the second coming. The only way it would be in any way sustainable would be if sufficient people remained unconverted, and were willing to support the Christians as they wandered around not taking a care for tomorrow. Also, we'd need to protect them from the people who would exploit the Christian requirement to give away their possessions when asked to do so. Marriage and the raising of families should, based on Paul's teachings, decline - at least if we assume that Paul was indeed representing the wishes of the messiah who appeared to him in a vision. It's not that Christians should be obliged to not marry or have children. Marriage in Paul's view was the lesser of two evils, rather than the high aspiration typically seen today.
It's pretty difficult to derive a definitive set of teachings, even with an exclusively red letter approach. I think most Christians already have internalised ideas of what they think God wants, which they justify through selective reading, and in some cases, reasoning that is really not supported at all by the teachings and lifestyle of Jesus and his apostles. The historical Jesus, as much as we can determine of him from the gospels, would likely be baffled by modern interpretations of Christianity.
funny how when mocking Christians everybody brings up Old Testament "stuff" and never looks at the teachings of Christ Himself.
Not "everybody". The Old Testament is low hanging fruit, but perfectly valid for criticism unless one were pretend that the Old Testament is in no way applicable to Christianity - which would be at odds with the writers of the New Testament. Yeah, Christ's teachings were largely barmy and predicated upon the world ending within the lifetimes of his followers. Despite Christianity's biggest and most ignored "great disappointment", each generation assumes themselves to be the last, who should give no thought for tomorrow, yet pension schemes and marriage persist.
It's insane. How come a run of the mill dinner at a restaurant would cost me near enough 20 euro, while in Somalia that'd be dinner for a warlord and the most trusted members of his personal army. Lets see done elitist book learnin' boffin explain that!
No, you're not trying to overcome evil - you're a misanthrope, with justification pulled out of your arse. Feel free to leave this world when you please. Suicide is a sin, but actually risking your fucking life to do some good is not. Go to Yemem - save some souls. Walk just a metre in your messiah's shoes.
You think the Middle East would become like some backwater part of Africa or Asia if energy were removed from the equation?
Sure, if Israel and Jesus were removed from history. This part of the world has been cursed by three major and mutually contradictory revolutions from God. Of these truths, god knows how many splinters came even without considering the variations that arose as the religions spread throughout the world. This isn't about energy.
Had this act already passed, there'd be no need to send emails. They'd ready know the views of John Taylor of Poole, along with tens of millions more people.
Slashdot Mirror
1. You philistine, that is Art . Kudos to you, valiant troll on your glorious FP
How dare you! This is not art.
Judging by the disconnected and nonsensical statements, this can only be Dinesh "gays are ruining traditional marriage" D'Souza practicing for how he's going to explain away his rather blatant and highly hypocritical adultery.
His mistress is probably right now going down on him. Doesn't mean he's not down on his luck. Show some respect.
It helps to have AMD around, but doesn't prevent antitrust issues. Even if AMD has around 20% of market share in consumer desktops, Intel can still be dragged over the coals for anti-competitive behaviours. Any company's ability to use anti-competitive measures pretty much depends on them being dominent, in either the market in question or another that would grant them a significant advantage. e.g. John's Washing Machines using their market dominance in washing machines to break in to the toaster market by refusing to washing machines to electrical stores that sell competing toasters - even though at the time John's Toasters are about as popular as cholera.
No doubt though, having an alternative source of x86 and x86-64 chips does help intel's general case against anti-trust measures. AMD could vanish tomorrow, and Intel could remain completely free of anti-trust issues in relation to x86 and x86-64.
The article makes it sound like a plain clothed officer was chasing the guy. I don't know about you, but if some random guy started harassing me on the street and following me when I'm trying to get away from him I'd be concerned. You don't know if a plain clothed officer really is a police officer or just a crazy nut out to mess with people.
Yeah, as a gang member on parole I'd certainly pull a gun. What else am I expected to do, ask for ID?
The reason most libertarianism is easy to dismiss as magical thinking is that it requires everyone to think magically for it to work. Specifically, this weird assertion than as soon as all the regulation is removed, everyone will magically exist in a state of perfect information and understanding of all industries and services that they come in contact with.
Nah, libertarianism doesn't preclude cooperation between likeminded consumers. I find 3 million people who feel the same way as I do. Realising that we can't all head down to the offices of the company in question, we'll choose a small number of us to act as representatives. Recognising that these representatives may not necessarily have expertise in pharmacology, we'll also choose people to act as expert advisers. Of course this bears no relation to a government or a regulator.
That's the only way I can see the complete de-regulation approach working. The alternative is, as you say, everyone becomes omniscient, and has the personal resources to actually make corporation x sit up and pay attention.
I feel for Mundie. My construction business went through something similar. After many happy years of designing and building sub-standard residential properties, we were caught off-guard when people began to exploit the tendency of our houses to catch fire, explode, and be easily burgled.
As the largest builder of houses, we were a common target. We lost our lead in commercial buildings because we had to devote a lot of resources to learning how to build houses that lasted more than a few days.
it's easy in hindsight to say that electrical insulation is useful, or that gas pipes should not leak, or that front doors be made of something more sturdy than cardboard. Back then we had no reason to assume that anything of those things were ever going to be important, and I assume everyone built houses that were prone to sudden annihilation.
We're not entirely blameless. This would never have happened if people had kept naked flames at least 30ft away from the houses. The cardboard doors on the houses not at the time exploding and/or burning, was only an issue because criminals were trying to burgle houses.
What you're basically arguing is: if it doesn't argue against it, it must be for it. You're an idiot.
Worse than that, he's not even wrong! What the hell is Darwinian Naturalism? Whatever it may be, who's arguing that it encourages beheading, and why is the burden of proof not on that person?
What he has there is a strawman argument, based on the naturalistic fallacy and fuck knows what else. Empiric, what's your stance on Newtonian Naturalism, and can you explain how it doesn't condone artificial means of defying gravity? I'd also be interested in knowing precisely how atheism necessarily leads to murder - not even mass murder, just one murder. Here's a hint, the "god doesn't exist, so we can do what we want" argument doesn't work. The reverse - belief in gods, doesn't necessarily lead to murder. How about if the god in question abhors people who wear orange shoes? Let's get Biblical and say that this god specifically calls for the death of such people. Can the necessarily lead to murder? Of course it can. Could I point to many examples of "god breathed" scripture that necessarily lead to bigotry and murder? Definitely.
Could my failure to believe in this god necessarily lead to murder? No, it takes something other than this basic lack of belief.
In Bush's defence, having a God-appointed role in preparing for the final conflict should excuse the phantom WMDs.
I wondered why, on waking up thus morning, I felt safer - as if a great threat had been removed from the world. Well done, Sweden, and may I compliment your recent applications of extradition. I know Ben Stiller can rely upon you to execute international justice if anyone should slate his movies.
Related technologies used for translating German in to English, particularly in movies and comics, yield similar oddities. It seems at least partly due to the speaker's level of agitation. i.e. Hans von Wurstatem speaks English all of the time, except for the occasional "schnell", "achtung", "mein gott" or "teufel" on noticing that Charley Bourne* has tossed a grenade right in the filthy hun's bunker.
* Americans can substitue Sergeant Rock or Wonder Woman. Whatever floats your boat.
Good whiskey, and mocking the unintelligible conspiracy nuts = win*2
Cheers for that.
Posting in lieu of having an option to mod this as being "What did I just read?"
There are news sites I visit, and normally read just a single article, and there are those I'd tend to click around. BBC News is pretty handy for the little side-bar things that provide some background to the story.
Some have found a great way to get rid of me in the form of repeated offers to download their app. The Slashdot mobile alpha does this, despite my having dismissed the offer many times in the past few weeks.
Presumably these would be licensed copies of the games. That and the games packaged in a way that doesn't require torrenting and then fiddly set-up.
Good question. If it works, I'm going to be buying Syndicate. Absolute classic game!
It's a fact that dolphins are Republicans?
Abraham Lincoln had Lincoln as a surname.
American presidents: Inexplicably named Lincoln!
This isn't about banning smokers from sitting at their desk, enjoying a visit to flavour country with you involuntarily riding shotgun. It's about wholesale refusing to hire people for something they would be doing in personal time outside of work and during breaks. I'm giving up smoking myself, so I've become a little sensitive to the smell of cigarettes on people. Even so, it's pretty light among people who are smoking outdoors and wearing fresh clothes daily. The smell doesn't in itself constitute a health risk. Excessive odour should be dealt with the same way as it would if your co-worker decided that one shower per week was perfectly adequate for non air-conditioned office in Phoenix.
I'm guessing peanut eaters don't need to blow peanuts all over you. The impression I have is of a pedantic irritant who'd be on the phone to the cops on sighting a guy on a bench in a park across the road, enjoying a bag of Planters. Okay, so he's eating Monster Munch - doesn't matter. Those corn snacks probably contain "peanut particles" and other things discoverable only through the sciences of homeopathy and divination by entrails.
But in the last 100 years, experience with officially atheist governments have not produced happy outcomes, by and large. Indeed, they have been terribly bloody.
But how is it fair to describe those countries exclusively as being "atheist governments" as if atheism was the driving force behind their actions? Can you draw a necessary connection between atheism and the ideologies that drove those regimes? What you're doing is the equivalent of saying that Iran's government is theistic, so that explains why they oppress women. Theism itself doesn't necessary imply actions, as one could be a theist and not act upon it in any way. However, theism as a term carries more baggage than atheism. How many theists have gods to which they ascribe no attributes?
Let's consider a government who outlaws theism. Let's say that this government is atheistic in nature, but how does a personal lack of belief in gods lead to the notion that all theistic belief should be purged? No, that's something else.
Unless you can draw a necessary connection from atheism, what you have there is as useful as stating that a lack of interest in sport is causing a decline in tennis in favour of football.
The trouble is, the followers of Jesus don't tend to follow his teachings, but rather those of their church.
In fairness, his teachings are nigh on impossible to follow in their entirety. If they did follow his teachings verbatim, and everyone converted to this approach (including non-Christians), civilisation would collapse as people essentially just sit around waiting for the second coming. The only way it would be in any way sustainable would be if sufficient people remained unconverted, and were willing to support the Christians as they wandered around not taking a care for tomorrow. Also, we'd need to protect them from the people who would exploit the Christian requirement to give away their possessions when asked to do so. Marriage and the raising of families should, based on Paul's teachings, decline - at least if we assume that Paul was indeed representing the wishes of the messiah who appeared to him in a vision. It's not that Christians should be obliged to not marry or have children. Marriage in Paul's view was the lesser of two evils, rather than the high aspiration typically seen today.
It's pretty difficult to derive a definitive set of teachings, even with an exclusively red letter approach. I think most Christians already have internalised ideas of what they think God wants, which they justify through selective reading, and in some cases, reasoning that is really not supported at all by the teachings and lifestyle of Jesus and his apostles. The historical Jesus, as much as we can determine of him from the gospels, would likely be baffled by modern interpretations of Christianity.
funny how when mocking Christians everybody brings up Old Testament "stuff" and never looks at the teachings of Christ Himself.
Not "everybody". The Old Testament is low hanging fruit, but perfectly valid for criticism unless one were pretend that the Old Testament is in no way applicable to Christianity - which would be at odds with the writers of the New Testament. Yeah, Christ's teachings were largely barmy and predicated upon the world ending within the lifetimes of his followers. Despite Christianity's biggest and most ignored "great disappointment", each generation assumes themselves to be the last, who should give no thought for tomorrow, yet pension schemes and marriage persist.
It's insane. How come a run of the mill dinner at a restaurant would cost me near enough 20 euro, while in Somalia that'd be dinner for a warlord and the most trusted members of his personal army. Lets see done elitist book learnin' boffin explain that!
Palin/Trump in 2019!
All humans are evil?
No, you're not trying to overcome evil - you're a misanthrope, with justification pulled out of your arse. Feel free to leave this world when you please. Suicide is a sin, but actually risking your fucking life to do some good is not. Go to Yemem - save some souls. Walk just a metre in your messiah's shoes.
You think the Middle East would become like some backwater part of Africa or Asia if energy were removed from the equation?
Sure, if Israel and Jesus were removed from history. This part of the world has been cursed by three major and mutually contradictory revolutions from God. Of these truths, god knows how many splinters came even without considering the variations that arose as the religions spread throughout the world. This isn't about energy.
Had this act already passed, there'd be no need to send emails. They'd ready know the views of John Taylor of Poole, along with tens of millions more people.