Even from a strictly technical standpoint, what killed Columbia was that the vehicle sits side-by-side with the fuel tank. It's a design flaw at the core. Payloads that ride at the top of the rocket are more resistant to damage from things falling off the rocket.
He might be talking about the InfectSystem () function, which is heavily used by viruses. I wonder if he checked the LoadSpyware () function to see if that worked.
Anyone who has been saying that Darl McBride is a child molestor would not be telling the truth. There is currently no evidence that Darl McBride molests little girls.
I repeat, there is no evidence that Darl McBride has molested any little girls this week. Don't believe any reports you may hear.
Intelligent design is a different subject than the mistaken idea that evolution itself proceeds along random paths. The ultimate origin of life is a completely separate topic from the mechanisms of evolution. Both are offtopic here, and my purpose was only to explain why the often used example of a "tornado in a junkyard randomly assembling a Boeing 747" is based on the mistaken idea that evolution proceeds randomly.
If you're interested in counter arguments to Intelligent Design, there are many good sources on the web for that.
"Random accident" isn't a good description of how evolution works.
The game of mastermind is a good illustration of why. By random chance, it would take hundreds of moves on average to solve a game. But a good player can find the solution in 10 moves, or even less. That's because he's using a technique other than random chance. He relies on information from the previous moves to construct the next move.
The DNA in your cells did not form randomly with the formation of the specific organism called "you". The DNA in your cells formed in a manner informed by the DNA in all previous generations. That is not random.
Lincoln: What a charming Negress. Oh, forgive me, my dear. I know in my time some used that term as a description of property. Uhura: But why should I object to that term, sir? In our century, we've learned not to fear words.
You're objecting to my vitriol directed towards anti-homosexual bigots. You're in my fucking way. When I'm venting at bigots, anyone in my way is going to get a piece of my mind. You try to stop me from venting my spleen completely at a bigot, well that's defending a bigot.
Get used to it. If anyone is spewing anything negative about blacks, Jews, homosexuals, or anyone else, I will stomp them into the ground. They can believe whatever fucking stupid idea they want to believe. But if they lift one little finger or wiggle their tounge in bigotry, I'm going to fucking cut it off.
I do think it's funny. I once read about a study where they rated people's attitudes about various subjects. Then, they had the people discuss the subjects with others who had different views. Finally, they rated their attitudes again. They discovered that after discussion, both sides' attitudes became more extreme.
The conclusion that I draw from this is that debate on the Internet will ultimately result in a global civil war.
My statement is that I really can't stand a bigot. Hate them all, and will oppose their ideas at every turn.
You're trying to construct a Goedel sentence out of my position, hoping to prove that my position is self-referential.
But you are conveniently leaving out the fact that I am opposing evil bigotry, of the same character as the Klan practices. My opposition is an ultimate good, and is the opposite of the Klan's bigotry. Therefore, no self-reference is possible, and you fail your semantic game.
But that's expected, because bigots who defend the hating of homosexuals have giant cocks stuffed into their craniums, displacing their brains. You're just a stupid little fuckstick, and nobody can blame your idiotic position on anything resembling thought.
And if anyone thinks that was harsh, I ask you, would you be nicer to Adolf Hitler if you met him?
Given the choices outlined in the news article (do nothing or set government royalty schedules) the current government is going to do nothing, favoring the free market approach. I think that anyone can see that coming.
I don't think that anyone is afraid of piracy so much that they will accept government royalty schedules.
Not offtopic. (it's about Falwell) Not flamebait. (no replies are necessary) Not a troll. (also no replies requested) Not informative. (you already knew that) Not insightful. (a blind man could see that) Not interesting. (Lots of people suck. Some more than Falwell.) I guess that statement just stands alone just the way it is. Use the over/under rated mods as you see fit.
See my earlier post about what you were and were not born to be.
And you're just wrong. You can't argue with facts, and you can't make up facts when the person who you're talking to knows better. You can fool someone who doesn't know anything, but I'm a great deal smarter than you. And you don't realize it.
Wow. I could have easily said that exact same to you with conviction.
And you'd be completely wrong. You'd be as wrong as a bigot. You'd be as wrong as a Klansman.
Except that I don't know you. And it is becoming more and more clear that you don't know the One who made you.
Hahaha. What are you, a child? Wake up.
Where do you get your morals that you feel you must defend so vigorously and spew hatred to those who go against them?
I get my morals by being a person who uses his head. You say that a person is wrong or sinful because of the way you are born? Fuck you. You're a bigot, and I oppose you and every justification you provide for your bigotry with every ounce of energy that I have.
And no, even if you are gay I don't hate you or consider you less than human.
And you are a fucking liar too. You disapprove of everything that a person is, but you say you don't hate them? What a fucking lie. It's a logical contradiction and you are too stupid to understand that.
I HATE YOU BECAUSE YOU ARE A BIGOT. I don't pretend to like you. I just plain hate you, because what you think and what you do is what you are.
Got it? Bet you 10 bucks you don't understand anything.
Wow, you're an idiot. You are my enemy, and unAmerican. Un Human.
And who said I was gay? Maybe I am and maybe I'm not. What is clear is that I believe that everyone has the right to be the person they were born to be. You do not. What is very clear is that I am not a bigot, like you.
Your ideas kill people, they are false, and they degrade the dignity of a person. That is completely indefensible for any moral person. That you defend the ideas makes you immoral. That you do not recognise right from wrong is an advertisement of your moral perversion. That you do not exist in a vacuum is evidence of a sickness in our culture that will kill a lot more people with ignorance and lies.
You're entitled to your own opinions, no matter how stupid they are. But you are not entitled to your own facts.
You're an ass who deliberately plays semantic games. Gays don't have the same right as heterosexuals. They cannot marry the person that they choose. They do not want to marry someone of the opposite sex, and that you'd think a woman marrying a gay man is OK shows just what you think of marriage in general. It's just a show for you, not a relationship and a partnership for fulfillment in life.
I believe that equality of opportunity should be afforded to all Americans regardless of race, color, creed or sexual orientation. For that reason I support the right of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered persons to have the full protections and rights afforded under civil law including the right to marry the person of their choice.
So there you go. Kucinich is the only politician that I know of that doesn't classify humans into "people with rights" and "people without rights".
Actually, there's probably no better way. I bet if you dug up the stuff from 1836 there's all kinds of shit in there about how Jackson was a loser coward SOB blah blah blah.
Dirty campaigns are nothing new. If we had a clean campaign I'd leave the country quick, just in case it was a sign of the end times.
Slashdot Mirror
Even from a strictly technical standpoint, what killed Columbia was that the vehicle sits side-by-side with the fuel tank. It's a design flaw at the core. Payloads that ride at the top of the rocket are more resistant to damage from things falling off the rocket.
He might be talking about the InfectSystem () function, which is heavily used by viruses. I wonder if he checked the LoadSpyware () function to see if that worked.
Anyone who has been saying that Darl McBride is a child molestor would not be telling the truth. There is currently no evidence that Darl McBride molests little girls.
I repeat, there is no evidence that Darl McBride has molested any little girls this week. Don't believe any reports you may hear.
Intelligent design is a different subject than the mistaken idea that evolution itself proceeds along random paths. The ultimate origin of life is a completely separate topic from the mechanisms of evolution. Both are offtopic here, and my purpose was only to explain why the often used example of a "tornado in a junkyard randomly assembling a Boeing 747" is based on the mistaken idea that evolution proceeds randomly.
If you're interested in counter arguments to Intelligent Design, there are many good sources on the web for that.
Nah, this makes it easier to talk to your bong even when you aren't high.
"Random accident" isn't a good description of how evolution works.
The game of mastermind is a good illustration of why. By random chance, it would take hundreds of moves on average to solve a game. But a good player can find the solution in 10 moves, or even less. That's because he's using a technique other than random chance. He relies on information from the previous moves to construct the next move.
The DNA in your cells did not form randomly with the formation of the specific organism called "you". The DNA in your cells formed in a manner informed by the DNA in all previous generations. That is not random.
It's true then, some people support George Bush because they just don't know a joke when they see it.
Star Trek's take on the subject:
Lincoln: What a charming Negress. Oh, forgive me, my dear. I know in my time some used that term as a description of property.
Uhura: But why should I object to that term, sir? In our century, we've learned not to fear words.
He could have been shot at dawn under trumped up terrorism charges.
And you can go fuck yourself. Bigots will not get any nicities from me.
You're objecting to my vitriol directed towards anti-homosexual bigots. You're in my fucking way. When I'm venting at bigots, anyone in my way is going to get a piece of my mind. You try to stop me from venting my spleen completely at a bigot, well that's defending a bigot.
Get used to it. If anyone is spewing anything negative about blacks, Jews, homosexuals, or anyone else, I will stomp them into the ground. They can believe whatever fucking stupid idea they want to believe. But if they lift one little finger or wiggle their tounge in bigotry, I'm going to fucking cut it off.
I don't know what you're trying to prove, but when you defend bigotry, it's not likely to earn you a blow job.
I know who you are. Distintuishing one bigot from another is a useless excercise. All that needs to be known is that bigots are idiots.
If you say that my dislike of bigots is bigotry, then you are just morally fucked up. Opposing evil is not evil, it's good.
I do think it's funny. I once read about a study where they rated people's attitudes about various subjects. Then, they had the people discuss the subjects with others who had different views. Finally, they rated their attitudes again. They discovered that after discussion, both sides' attitudes became more extreme.
The conclusion that I draw from this is that debate on the Internet will ultimately result in a global civil war.
Opposing bigotry with bigotry is wrong.
My statement is that I really can't stand a bigot. Hate them all, and will oppose their ideas at every turn.
You're trying to construct a Goedel sentence out of my position, hoping to prove that my position is self-referential.
But you are conveniently leaving out the fact that I am opposing evil bigotry, of the same character as the Klan practices. My opposition is an ultimate good, and is the opposite of the Klan's bigotry. Therefore, no self-reference is possible, and you fail your semantic game.
But that's expected, because bigots who defend the hating of homosexuals have giant cocks stuffed into their craniums, displacing their brains. You're just a stupid little fuckstick, and nobody can blame your idiotic position on anything resembling thought.
And if anyone thinks that was harsh, I ask you, would you be nicer to Adolf Hitler if you met him?
Given the choices outlined in the news article (do nothing or set government royalty schedules) the current government is going to do nothing, favoring the free market approach. I think that anyone can see that coming.
I don't think that anyone is afraid of piracy so much that they will accept government royalty schedules.
OK, so you're saying that opposing bigotry is wrong? Yer fucked in the head.
No Klansman is correct in his bigotry, no Nazi was justified in his genocide. And no idiot should be unchallenged in his intolerance.
sucks.
Not offtopic. (it's about Falwell)
Not flamebait. (no replies are necessary)
Not a troll. (also no replies requested)
Not informative. (you already knew that)
Not insightful. (a blind man could see that)
Not interesting. (Lots of people suck. Some more than Falwell.)
I guess that statement just stands alone just the way it is. Use the over/under rated mods as you see fit.
would be in line with taking out New York
Well it's just going to have to take its turn. There are others who want to take out New York, and they've been waiting much longer.
See my earlier post about what you were and were not born to be.
And you're just wrong. You can't argue with facts, and you can't make up facts when the person who you're talking to knows better. You can fool someone who doesn't know anything, but I'm a great deal smarter than you. And you don't realize it.
Wow. I could have easily said that exact same to you with conviction.
And you'd be completely wrong. You'd be as wrong as a bigot. You'd be as wrong as a Klansman.
Except that I don't know you. And it is becoming more and more clear that you don't know the One who made you.
Hahaha. What are you, a child? Wake up.
Where do you get your morals that you feel you must defend so vigorously and spew hatred to those who go against them?
I get my morals by being a person who uses his head. You say that a person is wrong or sinful because of the way you are born? Fuck you. You're a bigot, and I oppose you and every justification you provide for your bigotry with every ounce of energy that I have.
And no, even if you are gay I don't hate you or consider you less than human.
And you are a fucking liar too. You disapprove of everything that a person is, but you say you don't hate them? What a fucking lie. It's a logical contradiction and you are too stupid to understand that.
I HATE YOU BECAUSE YOU ARE A BIGOT. I don't pretend to like you. I just plain hate you, because what you think and what you do is what you are.
Got it? Bet you 10 bucks you don't understand anything.
Wow, you're an idiot. You are my enemy, and unAmerican. Un Human.
And who said I was gay? Maybe I am and maybe I'm not. What is clear is that I believe that everyone has the right to be the person they were born to be. You do not. What is very clear is that I am not a bigot, like you.
Your ideas kill people, they are false, and they degrade the dignity of a person. That is completely indefensible for any moral person. That you defend the ideas makes you immoral. That you do not recognise right from wrong is an advertisement of your moral perversion. That you do not exist in a vacuum is evidence of a sickness in our culture that will kill a lot more people with ignorance and lies.
You're entitled to your own opinions, no matter how stupid they are. But you are not entitled to your own facts.
You're an ass who deliberately plays semantic games. Gays don't have the same right as heterosexuals. They cannot marry the person that they choose. They do not want to marry someone of the opposite sex, and that you'd think a woman marrying a gay man is OK shows just what you think of marriage in general. It's just a show for you, not a relationship and a partnership for fulfillment in life.
Are you saying that I shouldn't define myself by my sexuality? Fuck you.
Don't make the mistake of assuming I am anything else but a giant penis looking for a repository. Fuck you very much.
http://www.kucinich.us/issues/gayrights.php
So there you go. Kucinich is the only politician that I know of that doesn't classify humans into "people with rights" and "people without rights".
Actually, there's probably no better way. I bet if you dug up the stuff from 1836 there's all kinds of shit in there about how Jackson was a loser coward SOB blah blah blah.
Dirty campaigns are nothing new. If we had a clean campaign I'd leave the country quick, just in case it was a sign of the end times.