Actually, I simply think there is no reason to engage in this particular debate because it is of no value
But it is of value. Look back a few decades; remember how repressed and "in the closet" atheism was? Most kids were inculcated with religion by default because that's all that really made it into the public square.
Now, through the auspices of high profile objectors like these, and the rising tide of audibility on the networks, tons of kids know that theism is a subject of great controversy, not one that is settled, as the religionists would very much like them to believe.
The huge holes in theistic reasoning are now on the table, and subject to dissection by some of the finest minds out there. Baseless-assumptions-as-axioms are revealed for what they are; the cries of "but you don't know how X happened" are revealed as minefields constructed by the god of the gaps ideas; the idea that it is ok to have questions with no obvious answer is beginning to percolate about the population without inspiring fear. No longer do all citizens feel that they have to profess a theistic viewpoint in order to be socially adequate. Even the false middle ground of agnosticism is eroding, and all of this is not just good, it's great.
No, a debate like this probably won't move a single member of its local audience to the opposite view; but it serves to strengthen the atheist standing and presence in the community and that makes it very valuable indeed. Here, on Reddit, etc., this debate is very much an important topic right now, in the sense that lots and lots of attention is focused that way. All good, my friend, all good.
In 772, Charlemagne began a war of extermination against the heathen Saxons, destroying the Irminsul, the chief seat of their religion. Santa Claus (known as Odin at that time, later Sinterklaus, then Santa) observed this, and at the end of 772, delivered elf-coal, high in carbon-14, to everyone in Charlemagne's forces. In the process, coal dust flew in unprecedented amounts from his sleigh, and this was naturally absorbed by the trees during 773.
I swear, if you people just knew your history a little better, you could maybe make this "science" stuff work better.
Organic food is not about your health, it's about the health of the farm on which it is grown
No, it's about marketing high priced consumables to people scared to death of chemical names and with absolutely no sense of how much of what is a problem, or not.
but we *need* to change the exploitative way of creating our food to make it sustainable in the long run.
Again, no we don't. What we need is either more ag production, or (lots) better distribution, or (lots) less population. Going back to pre-industrial farming methods is (a), a pipe dream, (b), not called for in any way, shape or form, or (c) even on the trend line, which is steadily going precisely the other way.
Let me just point something out. In countries with highly industrialized ag, life spans are significantly longer than in the past. This is not just a consequence of more food, it is also a consequence of the quality of the food. It is also a consequence of our learning how to use preservatives, pesticides, and manipulate genetics. These are all good things, and the proof is in the burgeoning, aging populations that consume ag products that arise from these technologies.
"Organic food" is mostly marketing scam, with the remaining value just... food. You want something to be concerned about? There's plenty to go around. From our deteriorating political situation to the various wars of aggression and the witch hunts -- drugs, sexuality, etc. -- I'm sure you can find something of actual merit where applying your shoulder to the wheel doesn't simply prop up a useless industry.
Language is that tool which we use to communicate the vast majority of what's important. Figuratively speaking, you can paint beautifully with it, employing nuance and mastery, or you can draw crude stick figures like an addled child, finger painting. Deep patois may provide that warm and fuzzy feeling of being a member of a regional clique, but it directly isolates the speaker from everyone else, and that is not a good thing.
Yes, correct of course. I own both, and I get -casterlexia.:)
Not sure about the Behringer though. Doesn't the Mackie have tape returns?
Yes, it does. But if you use them, you have to reconfigure almost the entire board -- twice -- because when you're done with mixdown, then you have to completely set it up for recording again. The Behringer is surprisingly quiet and flat, and does an excellent job of mixdown, and so re-configuration is on a channel/instrument basis as needed, instead of a whole setup exercise, which can take quite some time. So I've found the Behringer to be an addition of significant convenience.
I think the new ones would be more fun. Super quick way to pick up leads, etc. You can only chase a scale up and down so many times, and that's all the early ones did. But yeah. Lights. Even an extra knob.:)
And hey, it's not like I don't have a light-n-knob problem anyway (a), (b)
Unlikely. More likely is they'll just make up some sophist nonsense, the same way they did when they started cooking up ex post facto laws, and viola, they'll declare surveillance as "not surveillance." It's truly amazing (and depressing) to see the depths that the higher courts plumb in order to excuse the direct violation of their oaths.
I remember seeing ads in Guitar Magazine and the like decades ago for guitars with LEDs in the fretboard that teach you how to play.
Here you go, Fretlight's been around for ages. Found an early one in a pawn shop, was a copy of a Fender strat... and it had better action than my actual Fender, so I bought it. Only down side is that it's *very* heavy. Still, with that great neck, it's really enjoyable to play.
The early ones -- like mine -- have a rotary knob that lights up various scales. The more recent models can lead you through a song or whatever, they connect to the computer via USB, and so can be programmed to do anything with the LEDs.
Only in the film, which is a *terrible* adaptation of "make room, make room" by harry harrison.
Soylent was not made of people, and furthermore was almost irrelevant to the plot (of the book... the movie hardly has a plot, it's junk) other than being cheap, somewhat nutritious, and "what you got" if you weren't rich.
You want a truly great read, get the book. You want a horrible viewing experience, get the film.
Actually, many similarities: airships float in a sea of air, using buoyancy just as a ship does. Perhaps more like a submarine, but those are boats too.:)
And the loss of the Hindenburg certainly put a crimp in airship travel!
US Steel, Bethlehem Steel... those were big operations. To see them die rather than convert to smaller, more efficient furnaces... that was a hell of a blow to a lot of people. Even if you forget the steel industry, though, all the rest stands, and of course there is more -- go into a Walmart and look at country of manufacture on just about anything you can find. Look at H1-B visas. Look at Korean guitars and semiconductors, Japanese keyboards audio, home theater, and amateur radio gear... to argue that we're not significantly affected by open trade is disingenuous.
I think -- just my opinion -- that if we really closed those borders we'd have a much healthier economy in just a few years, perhaps five, certainly less than ten. There's lots of demand here, it's just that it's being filled by sources outside our borders. And no, we're not exporting that sort of thing, either, there's no real balance there.
[looks around] notes missing steel industry, almost dead car industry, Detroit, electronics industry, retreating engineering industry, small widget manufacturing, semiconductor manufacture, computer manufacture, clothing manufacture... I'm really not sure that open trade has worked out that well, frankly. For that matter, in the intellectual areas where we maintained some presence for a little longer... not so much today. Companies think nothing of outsourcing anything they can, and countries like India are happy to fill those roles. Of course, we're still pushing paperwork around on Wall street and etc., and we have basic food commodities and some oil resources, but we're really not doing that well overall.
Within our borders, we have a large workforce, many of whom are unemployed, a large market, and immense natural resources, all within our borders. Economically speaking, it seems to me that a round of protectionism might not be a bad idea at all at this juncture.
The Clitoral Licking Association will hear about this, I assure you. A penetrating association of cunning linguists, we dedicate our lives to pulling back hoods and erecting the little heads found underneath. It's a base canard that all our work is performed tongue in cheek; not so! A frontal assault on the situation is generally the most efficacious, although we cannot deny that circling around to the rear has its uses from time to time. It taint just a rumor. Foreplay, and occasionally, four play, is all too often underrated.
In a somewhat related bit of news, Google recently emailed me to let me know that they were no longer going to support the desktop notifier, that tool I use each and every day to let me know I have mail. However, Google went on to tell me, I could get that functionality back if I switched to Chrome.
I'm not going to switch to Chrome. Zero interest. Nice try, though, Google.
Here's the meat of it:
Important Announcement on Google Notifier Beta
We are writing to let you know about an important change to Google Notifier Beta. Starting on January 31, 2014, Google Notifier Beta will no longer be supported, meaning the app will no longer show recent emails and calendar events.
Since the Google Notifier Beta launched in 2005, a lot has changed. Smart phones can now notify us of new messages wherever we are, and improvements to web technology enable similar features to be built right into the browser.
If you want to continue to receive notifications, you can use any of the following alternatives to Google Notifier Beta using the Chrome browser:
No. I'm not confused at all. I read the 4th amendment. I find a description of search and seizure, something they were very concerned with. In the same description -- in the same sentence -- I find a precise series of events that must occur in order to issue a warrant. -- the simple, obvious conclusion is that the warrant is required for the search, and indeed, referring to how things work, we find the "search warrant."
According to your (pitiful) reasoning, a warrant is not required for a search, which is (a) a ridiculous assertion, and (b) not supported by the 4th, and (c) makes the text in the 4th that describes the process for a warrant utterly without relevance (or in other words, what is a warrant required for?) and (d) "(un)reasonable" is not in any way a useful term to be used with regard to government action (remember, the bill of rights is a series of curbs on government action) unless we know exactly what it means, and viola, what do we find? A definition of reasonable.
To put it another way: If warrants aren't required for search and/or seizure, why the heck are the requirements for one set out? What do they mean? You need a warrant for... arrest? But again, apparently, you don't according today's twisted jurisprudence. So you don't need one to arrest, you don't need one to search, you don't need one to seize... apparently, in your world, these words are just there to amuse the reader.
Look, I'm not arguing the state of modern jurisprudence, other than to say it's absurd on many levels, I'm just looking at the document the framers wrote for us common people so we'd know what the limits of the government are. While the document isn't perfect, it's clearly not intended to be a mystery.
Warrants are required of the government for search, seizure, and arrest. If they weren't required, it would simply say "if the government feels it needs to, it can search, seize, or arrest any time, any day, for any reason.' And it sure as fuckballs doesn't say that. It also wouldn't be in the bill of rights: It'd be in the enumerated powers.
Slashdot Mirror
But it is of value. Look back a few decades; remember how repressed and "in the closet" atheism was? Most kids were inculcated with religion by default because that's all that really made it into the public square.
Now, through the auspices of high profile objectors like these, and the rising tide of audibility on the networks, tons of kids know that theism is a subject of great controversy, not one that is settled, as the religionists would very much like them to believe.
The huge holes in theistic reasoning are now on the table, and subject to dissection by some of the finest minds out there. Baseless-assumptions-as-axioms are revealed for what they are; the cries of "but you don't know how X happened" are revealed as minefields constructed by the god of the gaps ideas; the idea that it is ok to have questions with no obvious answer is beginning to percolate about the population without inspiring fear. No longer do all citizens feel that they have to profess a theistic viewpoint in order to be socially adequate. Even the false middle ground of agnosticism is eroding, and all of this is not just good, it's great.
No, a debate like this probably won't move a single member of its local audience to the opposite view; but it serves to strengthen the atheist standing and presence in the community and that makes it very valuable indeed. Here, on Reddit, etc., this debate is very much an important topic right now, in the sense that lots and lots of attention is focused that way. All good, my friend, all good.
Google has decided to censor -- Welcome to Apple's world.
http://gigaom.com/2014/02/03/no-chromecast-porn-apps/
Google knows best, apparently.
In 772, Charlemagne began a war of extermination against the heathen Saxons, destroying the Irminsul, the chief seat of their religion. Santa Claus (known as Odin at that time, later Sinterklaus, then Santa) observed this, and at the end of 772, delivered elf-coal, high in carbon-14, to everyone in Charlemagne's forces. In the process, coal dust flew in unprecedented amounts from his sleigh, and this was naturally absorbed by the trees during 773.
I swear, if you people just knew your history a little better, you could maybe make this "science" stuff work better.
That's pretty normal for two testicles as well, you know. Although I'm only familiar with monopole structure.
No, it's about marketing high priced consumables to people scared to death of chemical names and with absolutely no sense of how much of what is a problem, or not.
Again, no we don't. What we need is either more ag production, or (lots) better distribution, or (lots) less population. Going back to pre-industrial farming methods is (a), a pipe dream, (b), not called for in any way, shape or form, or (c) even on the trend line, which is steadily going precisely the other way.
Let me just point something out. In countries with highly industrialized ag, life spans are significantly longer than in the past. This is not just a consequence of more food, it is also a consequence of the quality of the food. It is also a consequence of our learning how to use preservatives, pesticides, and manipulate genetics. These are all good things, and the proof is in the burgeoning, aging populations that consume ag products that arise from these technologies.
"Organic food" is mostly marketing scam, with the remaining value just... food. You want something to be concerned about? There's plenty to go around. From our deteriorating political situation to the various wars of aggression and the witch hunts -- drugs, sexuality, etc. -- I'm sure you can find something of actual merit where applying your shoulder to the wheel doesn't simply prop up a useless industry.
Ahem. Repeat after me:
From Latin per se (“by itself”), from per (“by, through”) and se (“itself, himself, , herself, themselves")
Far too simplistic an example to make your case. Language can indeed cue culture. Spend a little time here to get a taste of some surface examples.
Poor != "incompetent to speak"
Ethnicity also != "incompetent to speak"
Language is that tool which we use to communicate the vast majority of what's important. Figuratively speaking, you can paint beautifully with it, employing nuance and mastery, or you can draw crude stick figures like an addled child, finger painting. Deep patois may provide that warm and fuzzy feeling of being a member of a regional clique, but it directly isolates the speaker from everyone else, and that is not a good thing.
lol "flamebait" -- why, good morning, your honor. :)
The truth hurts, eh?
Yes, correct of course. I own both, and I get -casterlexia. :)
Yes, it does. But if you use them, you have to reconfigure almost the entire board -- twice -- because when you're done with mixdown, then you have to completely set it up for recording again. The Behringer is surprisingly quiet and flat, and does an excellent job of mixdown, and so re-configuration is on a channel/instrument basis as needed, instead of a whole setup exercise, which can take quite some time. So I've found the Behringer to be an addition of significant convenience.
Veyr artistic. :)
In the sewers of Rome... most of it.
All that and I didn't think to post the pic of the guitar. Derp.
I think the new ones would be more fun. Super quick way to pick up leads, etc. You can only chase a scale up and down so many times, and that's all the early ones did. But yeah. Lights. Even an extra knob. :)
And hey, it's not like I don't have a light-n-knob problem anyway (a), (b)
Unlikely. More likely is they'll just make up some sophist nonsense, the same way they did when they started cooking up ex post facto laws, and viola, they'll declare surveillance as "not surveillance." It's truly amazing (and depressing) to see the depths that the higher courts plumb in order to excuse the direct violation of their oaths.
Here you go, Fretlight's been around for ages. Found an early one in a pawn shop, was a copy of a Fender strat... and it had better action than my actual Fender, so I bought it. Only down side is that it's *very* heavy. Still, with that great neck, it's really enjoyable to play.
The early ones -- like mine -- have a rotary knob that lights up various scales. The more recent models can lead you through a song or whatever, they connect to the computer via USB, and so can be programmed to do anything with the LEDs.
Only in the film, which is a *terrible* adaptation of "make room, make room" by harry harrison.
Soylent was not made of people, and furthermore was almost irrelevant to the plot (of the book... the movie hardly has a plot, it's junk) other than being cheap, somewhat nutritious, and "what you got" if you weren't rich.
You want a truly great read, get the book. You want a horrible viewing experience, get the film.
Hey, check it out. My first post to reach both +5 funny **and** -1 flamebait.
Slashdot moderation is just hilariously broken. This, my friends, is why I read at -1 at all times.
Actually, many similarities: airships float in a sea of air, using buoyancy just as a ship does. Perhaps more like a submarine, but those are boats too. :)
And the loss of the Hindenburg certainly put a crimp in airship travel!
US Steel, Bethlehem Steel... those were big operations. To see them die rather than convert to smaller, more efficient furnaces... that was a hell of a blow to a lot of people. Even if you forget the steel industry, though, all the rest stands, and of course there is more -- go into a Walmart and look at country of manufacture on just about anything you can find. Look at H1-B visas. Look at Korean guitars and semiconductors, Japanese keyboards audio, home theater, and amateur radio gear... to argue that we're not significantly affected by open trade is disingenuous.
I think -- just my opinion -- that if we really closed those borders we'd have a much healthier economy in just a few years, perhaps five, certainly less than ten. There's lots of demand here, it's just that it's being filled by sources outside our borders. And no, we're not exporting that sort of thing, either, there's no real balance there.
[looks around] notes missing steel industry, almost dead car industry, Detroit, electronics industry, retreating engineering industry, small widget manufacturing, semiconductor manufacture, computer manufacture, clothing manufacture... I'm really not sure that open trade has worked out that well, frankly. For that matter, in the intellectual areas where we maintained some presence for a little longer... not so much today. Companies think nothing of outsourcing anything they can, and countries like India are happy to fill those roles. Of course, we're still pushing paperwork around on Wall street and etc., and we have basic food commodities and some oil resources, but we're really not doing that well overall.
Within our borders, we have a large workforce, many of whom are unemployed, a large market, and immense natural resources, all within our borders. Economically speaking, it seems to me that a round of protectionism might not be a bad idea at all at this juncture.
The Clitoral Licking Association will hear about this, I assure you. A penetrating association of cunning linguists, we dedicate our lives to pulling back hoods and erecting the little heads found underneath. It's a base canard that all our work is performed tongue in cheek; not so! A frontal assault on the situation is generally the most efficacious, although we cannot deny that circling around to the rear has its uses from time to time. It taint just a rumor. Foreplay, and occasionally, four play, is all too often underrated.
Yawn. Python. With great C bindings. :)
Oh, another one who uses cloaca.lib -- yeah, not only warmer, but you get aimed results and splash damage.
In a somewhat related bit of news, Google recently emailed me to let me know that they were no longer going to support the desktop notifier, that tool I use each and every day to let me know I have mail. However, Google went on to tell me, I could get that functionality back if I switched to Chrome.
I'm not going to switch to Chrome. Zero interest. Nice try, though, Google.
Here's the meat of it:
No. I'm not confused at all. I read the 4th amendment. I find a description of search and seizure, something they were very concerned with. In the same description -- in the same sentence -- I find a precise series of events that must occur in order to issue a warrant. -- the simple, obvious conclusion is that the warrant is required for the search, and indeed, referring to how things work, we find the "search warrant."
According to your (pitiful) reasoning, a warrant is not required for a search, which is (a) a ridiculous assertion, and (b) not supported by the 4th, and (c) makes the text in the 4th that describes the process for a warrant utterly without relevance (or in other words, what is a warrant required for?) and (d) "(un)reasonable" is not in any way a useful term to be used with regard to government action (remember, the bill of rights is a series of curbs on government action) unless we know exactly what it means, and viola, what do we find? A definition of reasonable.
To put it another way: If warrants aren't required for search and/or seizure, why the heck are the requirements for one set out? What do they mean? You need a warrant for... arrest? But again, apparently, you don't according today's twisted jurisprudence. So you don't need one to arrest, you don't need one to search, you don't need one to seize... apparently, in your world, these words are just there to amuse the reader.
Look, I'm not arguing the state of modern jurisprudence, other than to say it's absurd on many levels, I'm just looking at the document the framers wrote for us common people so we'd know what the limits of the government are. While the document isn't perfect, it's clearly not intended to be a mystery.
Warrants are required of the government for search, seizure, and arrest. If they weren't required, it would simply say "if the government feels it needs to, it can search, seize, or arrest any time, any day, for any reason.' And it sure as fuckballs doesn't say that. It also wouldn't be in the bill of rights: It'd be in the enumerated powers.