There is no such separation in the constitution, that was a later construct.
This is a misconception. The term 'separation of church and state' describes the spirit of the constitution aptly. Indeed, the founders wanted the government to act based on personal values, not church doctrine.
It is annoying beyond all explanation when people act as if "Allah" is a proper name.
Nearly all proper names are actually derived from ordinary words, but they're still proper names. By your logic, Christians should not object to saying "Under Allah" in the pledge, but they would most certainly object.
What then is a hypothesis? It's a belief, one that will either be proved or disproved.
No one needs to believe a hypothesis. It is simply a falsifiable assumption. Show me a religion that operates purely on falsifiable assumptions.
Science is far from untouchable. 100 years ago science said that it wasn't possible for mankind to visit the moon. Science is in a state of flux, it is always changing.
Science does not tell us what is impossible.
Science named the atom. A the prefix meaning "not" and tom meaning "cut", science said that it wasn't possible to cut the atom. In the 1940s science evolved when it was shown that we can split atoms.
Now you've earned your 'Flamebait' moderation. Next you'll be telling us that Special Relativity isn't Special enough for you.
He was an exceptional man in his day, but that day has long since passed.
Jefferson was a man of ideas, not dogma. If Jefferson were alive today I have no doubt that he would still support the individual's right to find his own Truth, even if it would really be 'her' own Truth.
I haven't seen her position on game banning and regulation (even after searching - do you have links?). All I saw was an idea to place a warning label on MMORPGs stating that they may be addictive.
She even conceded that "[online gaming] is a great tool that can offer hours of enjoyment, and interaction with the outside world." In a different article, she laments that "if you're an alcoholic or addicted to drugs, there's places you can go for help, but there was no one there for [Shawn]--no one who knew how to help." Obviously, she's aware that gaming can be addictive just like anything else; she appears to want to increase awareness of this phenomenon, and nothing more. Does this outlook not fit perfectly with your call for more scrutiny of our mental health in general?
1) Some enjoyable (non-drug) things are actually addictive.
2) Most people don't become dangerously addicted, but some do.
3) Those that do become dangerously addicted typically want help, not excuses.
By simply calling all enjoyable things addictive, we're raising a generation of people with no incentive for self control. They don't need to control themselves, they can just blame others.
So, um, you blame society's woes on the definition of 'addictive'? And you see no irony here at all?
This parent has dedicated a part of her life to helping people in a position similar to her son's. That's actually a very constructive thing to do. Even if obsessive gaming is only a symptom of other problems, she's doing what she can to help others avoid the fate of her son.
Face it, if this were really an angry parent throwing blame at an easy target then we would see lawsuits, not support communities.
People spend too much time assigning blame. There seems to be an unwritten rule stating that the problem ceases to exist when you blame someone. No matter whom you blame, a certain fraction of online gamers are going to get addicted (and yes, it's a real addiction).
Lynn Hall and Liz Woolley both seem to understand this. They simply state that some gamers have the willpower to stop while others do not. I find it very easy to agree with everything they have to say. To twist their words into a petty blame-game is a tragedy.
As long as you have the choice to stand your dumb ass up and leave, leave it the hell alone. When did it become OK to have no self control?
Some people have little self-control. You're going to have to live with that fact because there's nothing you can do about it. So whether or not it's "OK" with you is irrelevant.
devil's advocate: When did it become okay to prey on people with no self-control?
Don't believe everything you "read in places". Do you honestly believe that it's better for 'personal responsibility' to outlaw things like abortion? If so, then what is to stop people from banning video games for exactly the same reason? After all, violent games are 'evil' and quite unnecessary.
But perhaps you don't understand the concept of 'responsibility'.
If I want to play games or have an abortion, I should be able to take responsibility for my own actions. I don't care how many nuts think these actions promote murder on some abstract/metaphysical level.
the fundamental principle of communism they individuals aren't important
Tsk, tsk, you're equating importance and money. If you knew anything about communist thought, you'd know that the quality of an individual's life is exceptionally important.
Welcome to the wonderful world of synonyms! That's right, there can be two words that share a single meaning! From idealist/idealistic to extortionate/extortionary, English is full of them.
I can't think of anything else I use where I have that guarantee... even something as simple as using of humankind's oldest tools, the knife.
Ah, but you may be confusing the interface with the function.
The knife is supposed to cut things; the email client is supposed to send and receive email. You can cut your hand with a knife; you can send hate mail to your boss. These undesirable actions are expected features of their respective tools.
The author of the article is talking about something else entirely - the interface. The knife is actually ideal in this regard. It may require maintenance, but it won't refuse to operate if the conditions aren't perfect. You can *try* to cut whatever you want with it. Why not give the users of software the same freedom?
Is there something unclear about this concept? You have forcibly taken oil that isn't yours. That is called 'stealing', ladies and gentlemen. The Iraqis did not decide to sell you their oil and reward American companies with the profits. No matter how wonderful you think these companies are, they were solicited by none other than the US Government, which does not have sovereignty over the Iraqi people nor the international authority to administer their resources.
As Napoleon once said,"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake."
Your 'enemy', eh? Surely you're not referring to your own countrymen!
I'm afraid you're wrong about that. By failing to provide adequate security, the occupiers are responsible for the chaos in Iraq. It's simple cause and effect.
Actually Bush and his party have little if any effect on this. Sorry, but both parties have collected power to the Federal Government through out our history.
It's an ill omen when your first two sentences contradict each other.
None of that was orchestrated by Democrats. These incidents are actually crimes against the Democratic party itself (fictitious voters don't vote). But even if it was all planned in advance by the Democrats, it still would pale in comparison to the thounsands and thousands of voters the Republican party is actively trying to keep away from the polls.
I realize that you hate Democrats, but it's time to decide if you hate Democracy.
It's really quite simple: Oil companies want increased consumption, but until we actually decrease our consumption we will still be too dependent on oil. Why would an oil company want cars to have better gas mileage?
Bin Laden said that he didn't attack Sweden because Sweden doesn't bother him. He said nothing about individual states in this nation. The attacks of 9/11 took place in the liberal state of New York. Bush's policies have aided bin Laden's cause. Bin Laden EXPLICITLY STATED in his message that approves of neither Kerry nor Bush. These are the facts.
The article you mention was written by a Republican who wants to make you believe that bin Laden supports Kerry. The question is: Are you foolish enough to fall for it?
Bush makes it look hard to please Europe, but it's really not very difficult if you use some sense. Somehow, Clinton and GHW Bush managed to keep good relations with Europe. The fact that Bush Jr can't do it has nothing to do with Europe and everything to do with Bush himself. I know you don't want to believe it, but Kerry actually has far more diplomatic skill than Bush.
Be honest. There is no correlation, causal or otherwise, between the number of people killed under Saddam and the number of people killed in the ongoing war and occupation. The deaths took place under completely different circumstances, so even a historical comparison is unrevealing. (You might as well compare the amount of money Saddam spent to the amount that the US has spent on Iraq so far.) Your 'fact' sounds suspiciously like a Red Herring to me.
The parent post is obviously satire (no one would really suggest something so stupid) but the sad truth is that some people really do believe that killing is a silver bullet that will solve all our security problems. It comes down to a startling lack of understanding of the world we live in.
Slashdot Mirror
There is no such separation in the constitution, that was a later construct.
This is a misconception. The term 'separation of church and state' describes the spirit of the constitution aptly. Indeed, the founders wanted the government to act based on personal values, not church doctrine.
It is annoying beyond all explanation when people act as if "Allah" is a proper name.
Nearly all proper names are actually derived from ordinary words, but they're still proper names. By your logic, Christians should not object to saying "Under Allah" in the pledge, but they would most certainly object.
What then is a hypothesis? It's a belief, one that will either be proved or disproved.
No one needs to believe a hypothesis. It is simply a falsifiable assumption. Show me a religion that operates purely on falsifiable assumptions.
Science is far from untouchable. 100 years ago science said that it wasn't possible for mankind to visit the moon. Science is in a state of flux, it is always changing.
Science does not tell us what is impossible.
Science named the atom. A the prefix meaning "not" and tom meaning "cut", science said that it wasn't possible to cut the atom. In the 1940s science evolved when it was shown that we can split atoms.
Now you've earned your 'Flamebait' moderation. Next you'll be telling us that Special Relativity isn't Special enough for you.
He was an exceptional man in his day, but that day has long since passed.
Jefferson was a man of ideas, not dogma. If Jefferson were alive today I have no doubt that he would still support the individual's right to find his own Truth, even if it would really be 'her' own Truth.
I haven't seen her position on game banning and regulation (even after searching - do you have links?). All I saw was an idea to place a warning label on MMORPGs stating that they may be addictive.
She even conceded that "[online gaming] is a great tool that can offer hours of enjoyment, and interaction with the outside world." In a different article, she laments that "if you're an alcoholic or addicted to drugs, there's places you can go for help, but there was no one there for [Shawn]--no one who knew how to help." Obviously, she's aware that gaming can be addictive just like anything else; she appears to want to increase awareness of this phenomenon, and nothing more. Does this outlook not fit perfectly with your call for more scrutiny of our mental health in general?
Who funds this crap?
This article? The BBC, I presume.
And don't they have real science to do?
They're pretty much into journalism, I'm afraid.
And can't we please, please just have the real news on Slashdot?
Not a fan of the BBC, I take it. Or maybe you just didn't RTFA.
Your simplistic psychologization holds no water.
1) Some enjoyable (non-drug) things are actually addictive.
2) Most people don't become dangerously addicted, but some do.
3) Those that do become dangerously addicted typically want help, not excuses.
By simply calling all enjoyable things addictive, we're raising a generation of people with no incentive for self control. They don't need to control themselves, they can just blame others.
So, um, you blame society's woes on the definition of 'addictive'? And you see no irony here at all?
May I gently suggest that you RTFA?
This parent has dedicated a part of her life to helping people in a position similar to her son's. That's actually a very constructive thing to do. Even if obsessive gaming is only a symptom of other problems, she's doing what she can to help others avoid the fate of her son.
Face it, if this were really an angry parent throwing blame at an easy target then we would see lawsuits, not support communities.
People spend too much time assigning blame. There seems to be an unwritten rule stating that the problem ceases to exist when you blame someone. No matter whom you blame, a certain fraction of online gamers are going to get addicted (and yes, it's a real addiction).
Lynn Hall and Liz Woolley both seem to understand this. They simply state that some gamers have the willpower to stop while others do not. I find it very easy to agree with everything they have to say. To twist their words into a petty blame-game is a tragedy.
As long as you have the choice to stand your dumb ass up and leave, leave it the hell alone. When did it become OK to have no self control?
Some people have little self-control. You're going to have to live with that fact because there's nothing you can do about it. So whether or not it's "OK" with you is irrelevant.
devil's advocate: When did it become okay to prey on people with no self-control?
I think you've missed the point.
Don't believe everything you "read in places". Do you honestly believe that it's better for 'personal responsibility' to outlaw things like abortion? If so, then what is to stop people from banning video games for exactly the same reason? After all, violent games are 'evil' and quite unnecessary.
But perhaps you don't understand the concept of 'responsibility'.
If I want to play games or have an abortion, I should be able to take responsibility for my own actions. I don't care how many nuts think these actions promote murder on some abstract/metaphysical level.
the fundamental principle of communism they individuals aren't important
Tsk, tsk, you're equating importance and money. If you knew anything about communist thought, you'd know that the quality of an individual's life is exceptionally important.
Is this another one of those "activist judges" that are trying to take over the country? Or is it a much-needed affirmation of our civil liberties?
Welcome to the wonderful world of synonyms! That's right, there can be two words that share a single meaning! From idealist/idealistic to extortionate/extortionary, English is full of them.
So please get over it.
I can't think of anything else I use where I have that guarantee... even something as simple as using of humankind's oldest tools, the knife.
Ah, but you may be confusing the interface with the function.
The knife is supposed to cut things; the email client is supposed to send and receive email. You can cut your hand with a knife; you can send hate mail to your boss. These undesirable actions are expected features of their respective tools.
The author of the article is talking about something else entirely - the interface. The knife is actually ideal in this regard. It may require maintenance, but it won't refuse to operate if the conditions aren't perfect. You can *try* to cut whatever you want with it. Why not give the users of software the same freedom?
This one gripe makes me believe that the author doesn't understand computers and how they work at all
The author is describing how computers should work, not how they work right now. Be creative. Every problem you mention has a solution.
I have to agree about the car analogy, though. It doesn't make any sense.
the error in the initial count favors the Republican.
Is there something unclear about this concept? You have forcibly taken oil that isn't yours. That is called 'stealing', ladies and gentlemen. The Iraqis did not decide to sell you their oil and reward American companies with the profits. No matter how wonderful you think these companies are, they were solicited by none other than the US Government, which does not have sovereignty over the Iraqi people nor the international authority to administer their resources.
As Napoleon once said,"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake."
Your 'enemy', eh? Surely you're not referring to your own countrymen!
I'm afraid you're wrong about that. By failing to provide adequate security, the occupiers are responsible for the chaos in Iraq. It's simple cause and effect.
Actually Bush and his party have little if any effect on this. Sorry, but both parties have collected power to the Federal Government through out our history.
It's an ill omen when your first two sentences contradict each other.
None of that was orchestrated by Democrats. These incidents are actually crimes against the Democratic party itself (fictitious voters don't vote). But even if it was all planned in advance by the Democrats, it still would pale in comparison to the thounsands and thousands of voters the Republican party is actively trying to keep away from the polls.
I realize that you hate Democrats, but it's time to decide if you hate Democracy.
It's really quite simple: Oil companies want increased consumption, but until we actually decrease our consumption we will still be too dependent on oil. Why would an oil company want cars to have better gas mileage?
Bin Laden said that he didn't attack Sweden because Sweden doesn't bother him. He said nothing about individual states in this nation. The attacks of 9/11 took place in the liberal state of New York. Bush's policies have aided bin Laden's cause. Bin Laden EXPLICITLY STATED in his message that approves of neither Kerry nor Bush. These are the facts.
The article you mention was written by a Republican who wants to make you believe that bin Laden supports Kerry. The question is: Are you foolish enough to fall for it?
Bush makes it look hard to please Europe, but it's really not very difficult if you use some sense. Somehow, Clinton and GHW Bush managed to keep good relations with Europe. The fact that Bush Jr can't do it has nothing to do with Europe and everything to do with Bush himself. I know you don't want to believe it, but Kerry actually has far more diplomatic skill than Bush.
Be honest. There is no correlation, causal or otherwise, between the number of people killed under Saddam and the number of people killed in the ongoing war and occupation. The deaths took place under completely different circumstances, so even a historical comparison is unrevealing. (You might as well compare the amount of money Saddam spent to the amount that the US has spent on Iraq so far.) Your 'fact' sounds suspiciously like a Red Herring to me.
The parent post is obviously satire (no one would really suggest something so stupid) but the sad truth is that some people really do believe that killing is a silver bullet that will solve all our security problems. It comes down to a startling lack of understanding of the world we live in.
But if the thread was originally about Nazis or Bush then an application of Godwin's law has no special significance.