Are all neocons so philosophically unsophisticated or... just intellectually lazy... pricks like you need to die off or shut up... Take your heterosexual once a week monogomous guilt sex and shove it.
Those conservative bastards, with their personal attacks and stereotyping...:)
I think the whole nanny state bit (as far as media) comes from the fact that it's usually the government doing the rating. The MPAA is a private organization that works by consent of the studios and theaters, as opposed to a censorship body imposed from above.
I'm amazed at so many of you- it really is insane to be so adamant about the origins of life. When you dig up some video footage of the event, let me know.:)
Thing is, none of us were there- the evidence we gather is secondhand at best and EXTREMELY open to interpretation. It's disheartening so few of us are willing to admit that.
The coffee shop I frequent started offering free wi-fi a few months after they opened up. I was away at school for a couple of months this spring, and when I came back, there was a sign requiring a purchase for access to the network. I don't think their business has suffered as a result; in fact, I've swung by a few more times than I otherwise might've, just to use the connection and see my friends who also stop by often. This, of course, leads to the undeniable urge to feed my caffeine habit, and thus, a purchase.
The purchase rule they instituted seems to have stopped any squatting (except for my friend who uses the connection to play World of Warcraft in his car after hours- and even he buys things during the day!).
I suspect that in the case of the coffee shop in question, the squatters were simply taking up space where the normal coffee-buyers would have otherwise sat. Probably, the ultimate solution would be to institute a buying policy, but a fairly lenient one. After all, sometimes I come in and I can only afford a couple of Cokes over the course of a few hours- but they know I buy stuff whenever I come in (a lot of times the more pricey stuff), and so they don't hassle me about it. That's the kind of thing that makes me want to come back to a business. I didn't even like coffee the first time I came in!
I find it funny that many of my fellow slashdotters seem to be under the impression that proponents of ID are really, really desparate to prove themselves right. Many- perhaps most- proponents of ID proper are former disciples of macroevolutionary theory that changed their minds because they didn't think the evidence added up.
Many of you also seem to think that ID and "fundamentalists" are one in the same. This is far from the case. Most "fundamentalists" see ID as heresy- albeit extremely helpful heresy. ID is not a Christian idea- it's a deist idea.
Let's suppose archaeologists dig up primitive tools in an excavation. An arrowhead and the wooden part of a bow are found- but too deep. At this depth, the scientists estimate that the tools had to have been created at least three or four million years before the first humans are thought to have appeared on earth.
Scientifically, does it make more sense to say "Well, perhaps humans were around earlier than we thought they were, or perhaps this layer of rock is not as old as we thought it was," or does it make more sense to say, "Since complexity can rise from simplicity, and since humanity wasn't around during this time period, obviously wind, water, and other natural elements must have created these tools."?
This is what ID proponents (many of them actual, degree-holding, practicing scientists) are seeing in this debate. It seems scientifically sound to assume that such a well-made universe was created by an intelligent being- rather than assuming it arose by chance.
Granted, my example does present problems. We know already that humans exist, and that they create bows and arrowheads. We can prove humanity did exist, and that creating arrowheads is the kind of thing that they do. With God, one may point out, we can't do that. He is not empirically provable.
I'd like to point out, though, that no event in the past is empirically provable beyond all doubt.
I have a few problems with this. What rules are you talking about? What if one rule is that another of the rules is breakable under certain circumstances; i.e., the rules are more complex than we know?
What are you talking about when you say mysticism? If God exists or something like that, it might or might not be mysticism- but it would be reality.
then that is it.
What is what?
All of those rules can be determined and eventually will be.
I don't know how you can possibly know that. Sounds like mysticism to me!:)
France isn't the totally spineless country some Americans (including me, at times) make it out to be. At the the same time, so many of them don't respect us. What do you expect?
They helped us start our country. We saved their hindparts in WWII. What we need is mutual respect and support.
If I had a dollar for every idiotic caricature of Republicans that I've read or heard over the past couple weeks, I could put Bill Gates out on his posterior...
A lot of people, I noticed, are saying that the box belongs to the company, but the box is not the same as the mail. If I agreed to put my diamond in your safe, does that mean the diamond belongs to you? I certainly hope not!
If there were a contract stating that all mail stored in the box belonged to the company, that would be different. But there is no contract!
I don't think it's talking to his girlfriend that's the problem, it's the phone! C'mon, isn't it at least a little spooky to talk to a disembodied voice, even if it is your g/f?;)
Seriously, though, you can't build a relationship on all talk. Shared experience is a huge portion of what makes it good, especially for men.
We can't approach this subject as though the woman is the only person involved, even though it does seem somewhat more noble to do so. A good relationship fills the needs of the woman and the man.
I'm not, of course, suggesting he "make her go along" with his idea if she doesn't want to, but it might be good for their relationship, especially if it fulfills his need for shared experience with the woman he loves (we hope).
But I might add that this could be a really stupid and selfish thing to do, depending on how it's handled!:)
Slashdot Mirror
Those conservative bastards, with their personal attacks and stereotyping... :)
I think the whole nanny state bit (as far as media) comes from the fact that it's usually the government doing the rating. The MPAA is a private organization that works by consent of the studios and theaters, as opposed to a censorship body imposed from above.
Thing is, none of us were there- the evidence we gather is secondhand at best and EXTREMELY open to interpretation. It's disheartening so few of us are willing to admit that.
The purchase rule they instituted seems to have stopped any squatting (except for my friend who uses the connection to play World of Warcraft in his car after hours- and even he buys things during the day!).
I suspect that in the case of the coffee shop in question, the squatters were simply taking up space where the normal coffee-buyers would have otherwise sat. Probably, the ultimate solution would be to institute a buying policy, but a fairly lenient one. After all, sometimes I come in and I can only afford a couple of Cokes over the course of a few hours- but they know I buy stuff whenever I come in (a lot of times the more pricey stuff), and so they don't hassle me about it. That's the kind of thing that makes me want to come back to a business. I didn't even like coffee the first time I came in!
But we all know what the "BS" really stands for.
Many of you also seem to think that ID and "fundamentalists" are one in the same. This is far from the case. Most "fundamentalists" see ID as heresy- albeit extremely helpful heresy. ID is not a Christian idea- it's a deist idea.
Let's suppose archaeologists dig up primitive tools in an excavation. An arrowhead and the wooden part of a bow are found- but too deep. At this depth, the scientists estimate that the tools had to have been created at least three or four million years before the first humans are thought to have appeared on earth.
Scientifically, does it make more sense to say "Well, perhaps humans were around earlier than we thought they were, or perhaps this layer of rock is not as old as we thought it was," or does it make more sense to say, "Since complexity can rise from simplicity, and since humanity wasn't around during this time period, obviously wind, water, and other natural elements must have created these tools."?
This is what ID proponents (many of them actual, degree-holding, practicing scientists) are seeing in this debate. It seems scientifically sound to assume that such a well-made universe was created by an intelligent being- rather than assuming it arose by chance.
Granted, my example does present problems. We know already that humans exist, and that they create bows and arrowheads. We can prove humanity did exist, and that creating arrowheads is the kind of thing that they do. With God, one may point out, we can't do that. He is not empirically provable.
I'd like to point out, though, that no event in the past is empirically provable beyond all doubt.
Most especially macroevolution.
As opposed to the highly sophisticated, culturally advanced action of the original trilogy?
Apparently grammar is NOT something they "take real serious" at EA.
What are you talking about when you say mysticism? If God exists or something like that, it might or might not be mysticism- but it would be reality.
then that is it.
What is what?
All of those rules can be determined and eventually will be.
I don't know how you can possibly know that. Sounds like mysticism to me! :)
They helped us start our country. We saved their hindparts in WWII. What we need is mutual respect and support.
If I had a dollar for every idiotic caricature of Republicans that I've read or heard over the past couple weeks, I could put Bill Gates out on his posterior...
A lot of people, I noticed, are saying that the box belongs to the company, but the box is not the same as the mail. If I agreed to put my diamond in your safe, does that mean the diamond belongs to you? I certainly hope not!
If there were a contract stating that all mail stored in the box belonged to the company, that would be different. But there is no contract!
Seriously, though, you can't build a relationship on all talk. Shared experience is a huge portion of what makes it good, especially for men.
We can't approach this subject as though the woman is the only person involved, even though it does seem somewhat more noble to do so. A good relationship fills the needs of the woman and the man.
I'm not, of course, suggesting he "make her go along" with his idea if she doesn't want to, but it might be good for their relationship, especially if it fulfills his need for shared experience with the woman he loves (we hope).
But I might add that this could be a really stupid and selfish thing to do, depending on how it's handled! :)