Listen, just be with her where she can see you. Read a book. Hold her hand. Talk gently to her. Tell her that you're there. Tell her who is in the room with her. Tell her who is coming to see her. Tell her about news in the family. Tell her what your children have been up to.
...and watch her go fucking insane since you've given her no opportunity to communicate the fact that she wants you to scratch the itch on her knee and change the TV channel.
Or they are people who, Oh don't know - run a useful and popular free-to-use Web resource and need to raise some income to maintain the service. Shocking idea isn't it?
I notice, by the way that you are posting on a free ad-funded Web site.
That's right. Only nice people have civil rights. We all know that. And what's with these lawyers defending people in court who are clearly guilty. Eh?
Wikipedia is beyond broken - at its best, it is a worthless pile of crap with some whipped cream sprayed on top to try to make it look presentable.
Actually, at it's best it represents a useful, accurate, well written source of information on a wide number of topics. Note I didn't say 'authoritative'.
Taking the AIDS acronym at face value, it is clear than it is possible to acquire a deficient immune response via a variety of mechanisms. So from that point of view HIV is not the be-all and end-all acquired of immune deficiency.
Having said that, it also clear that when it comes to infections that cause acquired immune deficiency, HIV is the no. 1 cause. If you want define AIDS as acquired immune deficiency coupled to HIV infection then there is no doubt that HIV is the causal agent. If you want to define AIDS as acquired immune deficiency, HIV is merely the most common/most important causal agent.
If you have a look at the video reference above, you will see that the iTunes-based activation includes a nice checkbox to click if you want to port another number.
Many of the advancements to science can be considered outside of what is considered "science" at the time.
I challenge you to name these many advances. No advances in science that I can think of fell outside of the scope of scientific method, in fact scientific method has stayed remarkably static over the last century. Certainly there were many hypotheses or findings that appeared to contradict scientific orthodoxy at the time - but they challenged (and overturned) a current scientific theory, not the method of science itself. ID by contrast is actually inimical to the scientific method itself - that is why it falls outside of science, whereas ludicrous stuff like general relativity doesn't. The jury is out on whether super-string theory is a scientific theory, however.
An attempt to limit scholarly inquiry by excluding it from scientific discussion will only discourage diversity in the scientific community.
There are many types of scholarly inquiry - that's why universities have arts, music, philosophy, law and media-studies faculties. None of them are sciences. Setting aside the the question of whether ID is actually a scholarly inquiry, it isn't a scientific scholarly inquiry - which is why it is excluded from scientific discussion.
ID is unique (I'm not talking about young earth crap) because it really is not straight philosophy as it has too many ties to empirical data,
Too many attempted or claimed ties to empirical data, you mean. And where there are links, those links are very very carefully chosen to agree with the predetermined answer.
it shouldn't be religion because (at least the reasonable arguments) don't actually argue for a "God,"
They do actually argue for a God, they just decline to name her explicitly.
and yet it doesn't fit very nicely into the current definitions of "science."
Agreed
I don't think it is fair to any argument to preclude it being reasonable based on the fact that it doesn't really fit into current frameworks that have been set up.
Don't you understand? The proponents or ID created it with a single goal: As a way of getting theistic theories of creation admitted to science faculties and lessons, that is all. The very fact that you say that doesn't fit very nicely into the current definitions of "science." means that you have identified the core failure in this attempt.
You're not the only one - I'm a bit of a manual junky too. But I think that comes from many years in the library when I was a kid reading heaps of 'how things work' books.
Exactly. I'm not a fan of most neologisms, like the people above 'mashup' leaves me cold. However folksonomy, I like. It is a splendid portmanteau that accurately depicts a taxonomy created by undirected popular action, as opposed to a centrally directed, planned and created taxonomy.
Interestingly, I don't actually have the word chillax in my lexicon - wossat?.
Your scheme (apparently): Anyone who calls the political system corrupt must automatically be a loser. Calling someone a loser and is good for avoiding thinking about the validity of the issues they raise. You do not need proof. It is easy to call people losers.
No, actually, it pretty much hits the nail on the head regarding why I will never own a Mac until Steverino departs the scene...
Just to be annoying, iTunes seems to work almost the way you want it to on a Mac - running OS X 10.4.x. You can have as many copies of iTunes running as you want. It doesn't complain. However you only get sound out of the currently displayed user.
Interesting, prior to 10.4 you could only have one copy of iTunes running
I'm sure that's it in a nutshell. Intellectually it doesn't matter that he is 11. But when you are trying to immerse yourself in a fantasy role playing game, anything that breaks the illusion isn't really helpful.
Slashdot Mirror
Or they are people who, Oh don't know - run a useful and popular free-to-use Web resource and need to raise some income to maintain the service. Shocking idea isn't it?
I notice, by the way that you are posting on a free ad-funded Web site.
Ah OK. I've never driven when I've visited.
Sounds like you could do with a London-style congestion charge though.
We ran Mantis at a previous place and liked it. Akin to Bugzilla but with a nicer interface out of the box, as I recall.
That's right. Only nice people have civil rights. We all know that. And what's with these lawyers defending people in court who are clearly guilty. Eh?
Really?
What do we do? Apart from spend outrageous amounts of money.
Good. Nice to see you were being educated.
That's what they want you to think.
Bad bad analogy. The Australian Prime Minister isn't subject to U.S policy.
Actually, at it's best it represents a useful, accurate, well written source of information on a wide number of topics. Note I didn't say 'authoritative'.
Thank you. I was banging my head attempting to remember where I had read that anecdote.
Taking the AIDS acronym at face value, it is clear than it is possible to acquire a deficient immune response via a variety of mechanisms. So from that point of view HIV is not the be-all and end-all acquired of immune deficiency.
Having said that, it also clear that when it comes to infections that cause acquired immune deficiency, HIV is the no. 1 cause. If you want define AIDS as acquired immune deficiency coupled to HIV infection then there is no doubt that HIV is the causal agent. If you want to define AIDS as acquired immune deficiency, HIV is merely the most common/most important causal agent.
Sounds like something in your configuration took out the phone side of the connection.
Now, if only MS had removed all functionality used by fewer than 10% of its customers.
I suspect they would have dropped PowerPoint entirely, and had Word rather akin to Notepad.
That's an "unusual" definition of "hostile takeover" you are using there. I can't see anything remotely hostile about it.
If you have a look at the video reference above, you will see that the iTunes-based activation includes a nice checkbox to click if you want to port another number.
I challenge you to name these many advances. No advances in science that I can think of fell outside of the scope of scientific method, in fact scientific method has stayed remarkably static over the last century. Certainly there were many hypotheses or findings that appeared to contradict scientific orthodoxy at the time - but they challenged (and overturned) a current scientific theory, not the method of science itself. ID by contrast is actually inimical to the scientific method itself - that is why it falls outside of science, whereas ludicrous stuff like general relativity doesn't. The jury is out on whether super-string theory is a scientific theory, however.
There are many types of scholarly inquiry - that's why universities have arts, music, philosophy, law and media-studies faculties. None of them are sciences. Setting aside the the question of whether ID is actually a scholarly inquiry, it isn't a scientific scholarly inquiry - which is why it is excluded from scientific discussion.
Too many attempted or claimed ties to empirical data, you mean. And where there are links, those links are very very carefully chosen to agree with the predetermined answer.
I think Forbidden Planet had the biggest impact on me as a kid, and still holds up well today.
... but yes, Blade Runner is splendid.
I have a rather soft spot for Dark City as well.
Ah well.
You're not the only one - I'm a bit of a manual junky too. But I think that comes from many years in the library when I was a kid reading heaps of 'how things work' books.
Exactly. I'm not a fan of most neologisms, like the people above 'mashup' leaves me cold. However folksonomy, I like. It is a splendid portmanteau that accurately depicts a taxonomy created by undirected popular action, as opposed to a centrally directed, planned and created taxonomy.
Interestingly, I don't actually have the word chillax in my lexicon - wossat?.
Your scheme (apparently): Anyone who calls the political system corrupt must automatically be a loser. Calling someone a loser and is good for avoiding thinking about the validity of the issues they raise. You do not need proof. It is easy to call people losers.
Just to be annoying, iTunes seems to work almost the way you want it to on a Mac - running OS X 10.4.x. You can have as many copies of iTunes running as you want. It doesn't complain. However you only get sound out of the currently displayed user.
Interesting, prior to 10.4 you could only have one copy of iTunes running
I'm sure that's it in a nutshell. Intellectually it doesn't matter that he is 11. But when you are trying to immerse yourself in a fantasy role playing game, anything that breaks the illusion isn't really helpful.
Still working just fine here at the time of posting. Curious.
Here's google's cache just in case.