Well, there's the difference between England winters, and Northern North America winters I guess. I see not a single person riding a motorcycle with a half-decent layer of snow on the ground. I know why because I'm a guy who rides his bicycle all year round: You constantly have to slow down and do this thing where you glide slowly with your feet out so that if you tip to a side you don't fall when on the slippery stuff. And then when you get to really bad spots, you have to get off entirely and just walk the bicycle for stretches at a time. I couldn't imagine doing either of those with a motorcycle because of its weight: the first you'd be risking a serious injury if you did fall even going slowly like that because the motorcycle would fall on your leg and that might ruin your day, whereas with the bicycle you just fall over onto the snow and it doesn't really hurt because the bike weighs so little. The second, you're pushing all that weight with the motorcycle which I'd imagine would get very tiring.
Also, with the bicycle you can stick to dedicated bike paths and bike lanes on roads and you can get out and walk it on sidewalks for some of the time. And that's what I do along with sticking to quiet roads that lack bike lanes. But with the motorcycle you have to stay on the normal motor-road. But with all this slowing down and getting off and walking it you'd be doing with the snow on the ground, you'd not only annoy the cars that are on the road, but you would probably be creating a danger with so many strange slow-downs and stops and what not: might cause an accident that way.
It's not about being warm and dry: You can you be as warm and dry in any-weather on a bike as in a car, that's easy, it just takes a few extra minutes to dress properly. The problem is that not all bikes are safe and convenient to ride in Northern winters, motorcycles are some of those bikes.
If I owned a business and I really didn't like democrats, why should I be forced to employ them indifferently with republicans? I should be allowed to employ whoever I want for my own business, that's right within free-association if you ask me.
It'd be a good thing to not depend on Middle Eastern energy resources. I think more than just purely economic pressures should bring such a change. Maybe that's naive though.
If the guidelines aren't law, what is done about pornographic games? Is it actually legal to sell games featuring explicit sex to minors in the US (some states anyway)?
This experiment is saying that attitudes may be influenced by a creatures genetics, and not just a result of social construction. This is an essentialist, racist, bigoted myth that is used to oppress people. This is clearly racist science, no different from Nazi eugenics.
Yeah, but that's not a fair anaology because Israel has the most militarized population in the world. Around 8% of Israelis are in the military, actively, as reserve and in paramilitary.
Compare that to the States where around.8% of Americans are in the military. Much easier to wage an effective popular revolution against the government.
Le Baron D'Holbach was writing at the same time of these guys and he was just as atheist as any atheist nowadays. So how can you justify saying that they were as atheist as you can get then?
A foreign country? You act like Iraq and its government has the same relationship to the US as does Switzerland. The USA has hegemony over Iraq. It's better described as a mother-country, that Iraq is its colony, than as a foreign country to Iraq.
Yeah, Mrs. Clinton is the liberal extrodinaire. She's just like the most pure and hardened liberal out there. She never bows down to tradition and is always challenging every centre of power everywhere! I'm sure she listens to like the craziest avant-garde music that neither of us has ever even heard about because its so out there, and her aesthetic in general! She's always wearing some grungy minimalist getup or making some weird fashion statement. She's like an anarchist and artist, man. I think she was even a member of the Doors, then she was in Pink Floyd, and then she was in Crass, and then she was in Unrest, and then she was in Slint, and now she's a member of some band that we haven't heard of because the corporate media doesn't want to admit their existence yet! And, she donates all her money that she happens to make to some weird mendicant, anarcho-christian sect in South Ossetia.
Shell reported 22.49 billion in profit for 2005. I think they could afford to have even a lot of tax increase.
Hey, wait, I thought capitalism was supposed to bring profits down, because everyone would compete and so there would be no room for large profits, and so someone would just undersell you? I've only seen profits increasing...
The air is public property apparently. These people put fumes into the air which hurt people. Why should these people who get hurt by these fumes not be able to get compensation from the people who hurt them? Shouldn't a hurt person have a right to compensation?
All people who don't drive cars can band together and sue everyone who does drive a car in one big class-action (on both sides) suit.
I'm not saying I would let you borrow my car. But if I did, you would not be allowed to destroy it. You would have to return it in the condition it was when you borrowed it. There's still implications if I trust you to borrow my car.
Same thing here. If I trust you to to recieve nude pictures and personal information of me through e-mail in order to set up a sexual relationship with you there's the implication that you do not post that information publicly on the web. Even if I should not have trusted you in the first place. Maybe they do need to realize that they should not have trusted him, that doesn't give this Jason character the right to break the implications. He will soon learn that when he is sued by at least one of these 180 people.
Jason said that he was a woman who was interested in these responses in order to meet with these people. He lied in order to embarass them. His lies and breaking of implied trust will apparently cause monetary harm to some of these people by way of loss wages and contracts. He will be held responsible for making up for this lost money.
"Give me a break. It is your responsibility as a parent to take care of your children, and that includes much, much more than just providing the bear necessities. When the kid grows up he's free to make his own decisions, as good or bad as he likes. Until then, it's the job of his parents."
I agree it is your responsibility to take care of your child, a definite moral one. And I agree it is much more than just providing the bread and water.
You just haven't convinced me why the parent's idea of what's good for the kid is better than the child's idea.
Take your hypothetical situation of your 9-year old. I would ask, why not give it to him?
He is asking for it, and you can supply it. You created him, so it's your responsibility to look to his interests. His interest is getting that gun, which is immeadiately apparent because he's asking for it.
You decide that he shouldn't get it, though, because you don't like his opinion. And that's exactly what bigotry is: "stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own." Dictionary.com
I don't see how you can justify limiting your meetings of your child's demands without accepting bigotry. I'm sure the former entails the later. You must necessarily stand for your idea of what the child's interests are and not for his.
This is the bigotry of parents, at least, of this type of parent.
They believe "they know" and their kids don't: because they're kids and have not had enough experience. I suppose 90 year olds should dictate to everyone then, or maybe bred and groomed princes of a ruling class... This is because they do not think that their kids are actual full people, but just objects for their gratification.
This is the initial reason for having kids. Kids fill some void in their life; usually to be a sign that life is good, so parents can take the sign to be actual reality which lets them make-believe that life is good. I mean, if life is good, then we should make more of it, so, therefore, if we make more of it, then life is good! It's not so much the result of bad reasoning, which it is, but the result of desperation to find happiness in their own life.
Your child never asked to be born into this world, maybe you should be nice to him and just give him what he wants, regardless of what you you think his "best interests" are. Only in parent make-believe fascist land could giving them less freedoms be construed as giving them "more freedom." That's because, as bigot parent you define what the child's "best interests" are, and so, what his "freedoms" are.
I'm testing it out right now on Firefox 1.5.0.6 on Windows 2000. Selecting fonts doesn't work for me.
I'll start a new document. Set the font. I'll start typing and the font we'll have reverted back. Set it again, and then it works. Line break, start a bulleted list. Start typing, and the font hjas reverted back again. It goes on like this with all sorts of problems.
I'd be very interested in using something like this, if they made it work better.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, there's the difference between England winters, and Northern North America winters I guess. I see not a single person riding a motorcycle with a half-decent layer of snow on the ground. I know why because I'm a guy who rides his bicycle all year round: You constantly have to slow down and do this thing where you glide slowly with your feet out so that if you tip to a side you don't fall when on the slippery stuff. And then when you get to really bad spots, you have to get off entirely and just walk the bicycle for stretches at a time. I couldn't imagine doing either of those with a motorcycle because of its weight: the first you'd be risking a serious injury if you did fall even going slowly like that because the motorcycle would fall on your leg and that might ruin your day, whereas with the bicycle you just fall over onto the snow and it doesn't really hurt because the bike weighs so little. The second, you're pushing all that weight with the motorcycle which I'd imagine would get very tiring.
Also, with the bicycle you can stick to dedicated bike paths and bike lanes on roads and you can get out and walk it on sidewalks for some of the time. And that's what I do along with sticking to quiet roads that lack bike lanes. But with the motorcycle you have to stay on the normal motor-road. But with all this slowing down and getting off and walking it you'd be doing with the snow on the ground, you'd not only annoy the cars that are on the road, but you would probably be creating a danger with so many strange slow-downs and stops and what not: might cause an accident that way.
It's not about being warm and dry: You can you be as warm and dry in any-weather on a bike as in a car, that's easy, it just takes a few extra minutes to dress properly. The problem is that not all bikes are safe and convenient to ride in Northern winters, motorcycles are some of those bikes.
What would be really wrong with that?
If I owned a business and I really didn't like democrats, why should I be forced to employ them indifferently with republicans? I should be allowed to employ whoever I want for my own business, that's right within free-association if you ask me.
"The slow blade penetrates the shield."
It'd be a good thing to not depend on Middle Eastern energy resources. I think more than just purely economic pressures should bring such a change. Maybe that's naive though.
How so? Is linking to something that is illegal, illegal? Doesn't sound necessary.
First they fear the CIA and Mossad, then it's the Freemasons, Rotarians, and Lionists. No joke, it's in the Hamas covenant.
How they treat "natives and immigrants"?
Um...wouldn't that be...everyone?
If the guidelines aren't law, what is done about pornographic games? Is it actually legal to sell games featuring explicit sex to minors in the US (some states anyway)?
I'm suposed to keep my fat and sugar below 20g, and carbs and protien under 180 (my body weight). Its quite challenging.
What does that mean? You weigh 180 pounds and you have to eat less than 180 grams in carbs/protein?
This experiment is saying that attitudes may be influenced by a creatures genetics, and not just a result of social construction. This is an essentialist, racist, bigoted myth that is used to oppress people. This is clearly racist science, no different from Nazi eugenics.
Shame on you Slashdotters. Shame.
Yeah, but that's not a fair anaology because Israel has the most militarized population in the world. Around 8% of Israelis are in the military, actively, as reserve and in paramilitary.
.8% of Americans are in the military. Much easier to wage an effective popular revolution against the government.
Compare that to the States where around
Short, and to to the point, just the way a review review review review should be! 4.5/5.
Le Baron D'Holbach was writing at the same time of these guys and he was just as atheist as any atheist nowadays. So how can you justify saying that they were as atheist as you can get then?
A Greek I.T. governor?
I figured this out when I drove a car with a broken steering column for 8 years. I figured it out on the 6th.
A foreign country? You act like Iraq and its government has the same relationship to the US as does Switzerland. The USA has hegemony over Iraq. It's better described as a mother-country, that Iraq is its colony, than as a foreign country to Iraq.
Yes, because he said it was Bush's fault. No wait, he said no such thing.
Total lack of reading comprehension - meet trigger-happy fascism apology!
Yeah, Mrs. Clinton is the liberal extrodinaire. She's just like the most pure and hardened liberal out there. She never bows down to tradition and is always challenging every centre of power everywhere! I'm sure she listens to like the craziest avant-garde music that neither of us has ever even heard about because its so out there, and her aesthetic in general! She's always wearing some grungy minimalist getup or making some weird fashion statement. She's like an anarchist and artist, man. I think she was even a member of the Doors, then she was in Pink Floyd, and then she was in Crass, and then she was in Unrest, and then she was in Slint, and now she's a member of some band that we haven't heard of because the corporate media doesn't want to admit their existence yet! And, she donates all her money that she happens to make to some weird mendicant, anarcho-christian sect in South Ossetia.
What a liberal.
Shell reported 22.49 billion in profit for 2005. I think they could afford to have even a lot of tax increase.
Hey, wait, I thought capitalism was supposed to bring profits down, because everyone would compete and so there would be no room for large profits, and so someone would just undersell you? I've only seen profits increasing...
Maybe it should be done.
The air is public property apparently. These people put fumes into the air which hurt people. Why should these people who get hurt by these fumes not be able to get compensation from the people who hurt them? Shouldn't a hurt person have a right to compensation?
All people who don't drive cars can band together and sue everyone who does drive a car in one big class-action (on both sides) suit.
I'm not saying I would let you borrow my car. But if I did, you would not be allowed to destroy it. You would have to return it in the condition it was when you borrowed it. There's still implications if I trust you to borrow my car.
Same thing here. If I trust you to to recieve nude pictures and personal information of me through e-mail in order to set up a sexual relationship with you there's the implication that you do not post that information publicly on the web. Even if I should not have trusted you in the first place. Maybe they do need to realize that they should not have trusted him, that doesn't give this Jason character the right to break the implications. He will soon learn that when he is sued by at least one of these 180 people.
Jason said that he was a woman who was interested in these responses in order to meet with these people. He lied in order to embarass them. His lies and breaking of implied trust will apparently cause monetary harm to some of these people by way of loss wages and contracts. He will be held responsible for making up for this lost money.
"Give me a break. It is your responsibility as a parent to take care of your children, and that includes much, much more than just providing the bear necessities. When the kid grows up he's free to make his own decisions, as good or bad as he likes. Until then, it's the job of his parents."
I agree it is your responsibility to take care of your child, a definite moral one. And I agree it is much more than just providing the bread and water.
You just haven't convinced me why the parent's idea of what's good for the kid is better than the child's idea.
Take your hypothetical situation of your 9-year old. I would ask, why not give it to him?
He is asking for it, and you can supply it. You created him, so it's your responsibility to look to his interests. His interest is getting that gun, which is immeadiately apparent because he's asking for it.
You decide that he shouldn't get it, though, because you don't like his opinion. And that's exactly what bigotry is: "stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own." Dictionary.com
I don't see how you can justify limiting your meetings of your child's demands without accepting bigotry. I'm sure the former entails the later. You must necessarily stand for your idea of what the child's interests are and not for his.
This is the bigotry of parents, at least, of this type of parent.
They believe "they know" and their kids don't: because they're kids and have not had enough experience. I suppose 90 year olds should dictate to everyone then, or maybe bred and groomed princes of a ruling class... This is because they do not think that their kids are actual full people, but just objects for their gratification.
This is the initial reason for having kids. Kids fill some void in their life; usually to be a sign that life is good, so parents can take the sign to be actual reality which lets them make-believe that life is good. I mean, if life is good, then we should make more of it, so, therefore, if we make more of it, then life is good! It's not so much the result of bad reasoning, which it is, but the result of desperation to find happiness in their own life.
Your child never asked to be born into this world, maybe you should be nice to him and just give him what he wants, regardless of what you you think his "best interests" are. Only in parent make-believe fascist land could giving them less freedoms be construed as giving them "more freedom." That's because, as bigot parent you define what the child's "best interests" are, and so, what his "freedoms" are.
I'm testing it out right now on Firefox 1.5.0.6 on Windows 2000. Selecting fonts doesn't work for me.
I'll start a new document. Set the font. I'll start typing and the font we'll have reverted back. Set it again, and then it works. Line break, start a bulleted list. Start typing, and the font hjas reverted back again. It goes on like this with all sorts of problems.
I'd be very interested in using something like this, if they made it work better.