Where "look at the facts" means "not even have a trial for an obvious suspect." I think you'll find that most liberals would be perfectly ok with a "not guilty" verdict if the evidence pointed that way, but not even charging someone who beyond a shadow of a doubt, and by their own volition, shot and killed a minor, is not a sane course of action.
Dealing with the intricacies of what is murder, what is manslaughter, and what is completely justifiable is something that should be handled by a jury of ones peers.
$500 a text seems a bit excessive until you realize that any one of them could have caused a car accident. Imagine dying, or worse, watching a family member dying, because someone else on the road was delivered a distracting advertisement. That one dollar off a pizza was really worth someone's life.
You know, I held the same opinion until I decided to do some research to back up my position, and found that only the heaviest oils in the refinement process are any good for plastics(at least the consumer/industrial grade plastics we're used to). Those heavy oils are also the worst ones for burning for energy, with the lightest ones being converted to jet fuel and gasoline.
I'm also pretty impressed with what we're doing with plant-based plastics these days, which are essentially renewable. Not on par with the oil-based plastics, but getting there.
Suffice it to say, I can't really hold that position anymore.
Then can you explain to me what the British people I've talked to meant when they said "the BBC tax", which I thought was a tax on televisions to pay for the BBC.
Your post reads as intensely sardonic and sarcastic, but I've seen only one failing from post-disney pixar(cars 2), and the marvel productions have been pretty good. Am I misreading sarcasm?
Except that's not true either, because there's lots of kinds of coercion. Not all of which are protected against by law.
Off the top of my head: implied threats, ostracization, boycotting, slander(that's not quite lies), blacklisting, firing, and a ton of other issues that a majority can wield against a minority with essentially no recourse. Besides that, religion in particular is very good at convincing people to do things that aren't in their best interests, like violating the law.
That's not at all what I said, but next time you don't feel like discussing things, how about not positing your view at all. It will have the same effect.
So, I think your point is that you can freely disagree with anything you'd like without it being taken as a crime? I think we've both just argued against each other that free speech is a good idea.
Just to put way too fine a point on it, but what structure is time? Time is a remarkably poorly defined concept in the deeper levels of physics, even less understood than gravity.
I think the big difference between you and me is that you seem to find it completely unacceptable that anyone be wrong. I think wrongness should be corrected wherever possible, but also consider wrong beliefs a useful lens through which critical examination of correct assertions can be re-examined and improved(sometimes).
Additionally, subjective observations are treated like objective facts without question all too often. I'm looking at you, Austrian Economics. I'd like the power to disagree with something that people say is objectively true, because people can be wrong about objectiveness.
All I'm saying is that that is a dangerous perspective. It makes it easy to belittle your fellow man. As if to drive home the point, you're comparing the religious to a house-plant in your post. There's a lot more to life than being right. There are so many factors that all qualitatively(and not quantitatively) contribute value from a person. Inspiration, charity, diligence, art, intelligence, physical ability, and yes having a good understanding of the working of the universe. It's too easy to give people a pass/fail grade on some simple criteria that, surprise surprise, puts you way into the pass category.
Slashdot Mirror
Where "look at the facts" means "not even have a trial for an obvious suspect." I think you'll find that most liberals would be perfectly ok with a "not guilty" verdict if the evidence pointed that way, but not even charging someone who beyond a shadow of a doubt, and by their own volition, shot and killed a minor, is not a sane course of action.
Dealing with the intricacies of what is murder, what is manslaughter, and what is completely justifiable is something that should be handled by a jury of ones peers.
That's pretty comparable to what I pay in the private sector. I'm not seeing the problem.
Forgive my forthrightness here, but: that's stupid. I very carefully tried to reread your post as sarcastic, and it still makes no sense.
Read the second half of the post please.
Nope, there's still host resolution step. Device sits between you and DNS.
Presumably even encrypted communication has to come from a url, which is how most adblockers identify ads.
$500 a text seems a bit excessive until you realize that any one of them could have caused a car accident. Imagine dying, or worse, watching a family member dying, because someone else on the road was delivered a distracting advertisement. That one dollar off a pizza was really worth someone's life.
Let's do Alphas. I'm sure glad I'm not an Epsilon.
iRobot doesn't make industrial robots. They make military and domestic robots.
Their media will suppress it, just like everything else that isn't part of the glorious harmony.
Interesting and informative. I may have to consider my position even further.
You know, I held the same opinion until I decided to do some research to back up my position, and found that only the heaviest oils in the refinement process are any good for plastics(at least the consumer/industrial grade plastics we're used to). Those heavy oils are also the worst ones for burning for energy, with the lightest ones being converted to jet fuel and gasoline.
I'm also pretty impressed with what we're doing with plant-based plastics these days, which are essentially renewable. Not on par with the oil-based plastics, but getting there.
Suffice it to say, I can't really hold that position anymore.
Then can you explain to me what the British people I've talked to meant when they said "the BBC tax", which I thought was a tax on televisions to pay for the BBC.
Burning extra calories?
I'm not sure if this is legitimate crazy or faking it to make people you don't agree with look bad crazy, but you're crazy.
You had to cherry-pick polls to really think Kerry was going to win in 2004(and boy did I)
In 2000, on the other hand, Gore pretty clearly won the popular vote, and pretty much every state fell into predicted categories for electoral votes.
It's not like anyone would expect to find a lot of sedimentary or organic minerals on mars.
Your post reads as intensely sardonic and sarcastic, but I've seen only one failing from post-disney pixar(cars 2), and the marvel productions have been pretty good. Am I misreading sarcasm?
Seems like a great opportunity for yet-another-rehash of the battle of hoth.
It took that long for the force to tell you about Episode 1? Jedi should maybe invest in cell phones.
Except that's not true either, because there's lots of kinds of coercion. Not all of which are protected against by law.
Off the top of my head: implied threats, ostracization, boycotting, slander(that's not quite lies), blacklisting, firing, and a ton of other issues that a majority can wield against a minority with essentially no recourse. Besides that, religion in particular is very good at convincing people to do things that aren't in their best interests, like violating the law.
I like your position, but I'm not sure its accurate. There's always a third state of being MISinformed.
That's not at all what I said, but next time you don't feel like discussing things, how about not positing your view at all. It will have the same effect.
So, I think your point is that you can freely disagree with anything you'd like without it being taken as a crime? I think we've both just argued against each other that free speech is a good idea.
Just to put way too fine a point on it, but what structure is time? Time is a remarkably poorly defined concept in the deeper levels of physics, even less understood than gravity.
I think the big difference between you and me is that you seem to find it completely unacceptable that anyone be wrong. I think wrongness should be corrected wherever possible, but also consider wrong beliefs a useful lens through which critical examination of correct assertions can be re-examined and improved(sometimes).
Additionally, subjective observations are treated like objective facts without question all too often. I'm looking at you, Austrian Economics. I'd like the power to disagree with something that people say is objectively true, because people can be wrong about objectiveness.
All I'm saying is that that is a dangerous perspective. It makes it easy to belittle your fellow man. As if to drive home the point, you're comparing the religious to a house-plant in your post. There's a lot more to life than being right. There are so many factors that all qualitatively(and not quantitatively) contribute value from a person. Inspiration, charity, diligence, art, intelligence, physical ability, and yes having a good understanding of the working of the universe. It's too easy to give people a pass/fail grade on some simple criteria that, surprise surprise, puts you way into the pass category.