or the idiotic way modern sets turn the backlight down in dark scenes. No, I'm not kidding, they really do that. Try watching Alien, or anything at all with a lot of night / dark scenes and most modern sets will ruin it completely.
Are you talking about the setting "dynamic contrast"?
I have two westinghouse bottom of the barrel TVs and they both have a toggle for this...
On the contrary, helping people to succeed does not necessarily mean that others do not succeed. There are not a finite number of "successes," as you imply is the case
.
A rising tide raises all boats.
There are a finite amount of resources and as such a finite amount of people who can enjoy "success", unless you are saying we can all be employed as CEOs and there are no minimum wage earners, which would be stupid to imply.
a rising tide raises all boats?? seriously wtf.
we're not talking about boats, and as an analogy it's flawed as granting people preferred status is in no way equal to a rising tide.
a better analogy would be handicaps level the playing field for all players, which is fine for a game, but this is life and the social-economic outcomes of people which affect their current lives and the lives of their children, i find your lack of perspective and blase` offensive.
So if you considered both string theory(?) of multiple universes formed from choices (all simultaneous outcomes exist until one choice is made then the rest collapse) and the paradox problem, it seems that a paradox is not actually a problem, as the logical outcome of that choice ( to kill your grandfather) would collapse itself leaving all the other choices/universes.
So basically, paradoxes cannot exist. what can exist does.
you do realize that ad hominem attacks on a website link are illustrative of a tiny and only partially functional mind?
aaah... ad hominem.. the last bastion of emotional and intellectual cowards.
if you actually read the article, you would see it did nothing but give facts. good luck arguing with those.
there were no "facts", it's a one line article and a graph attributed to nothing, fuck you asshole (there's a more appropriate ad hominem for you) for trying to drive up page views of your shitty site.
The principals are disposable, interchangeable, replaceable..
And if their predecessors were sent to jail, castrated, or both, how eager would they be to get the same punishment.
We've been fining companies the whole time and it doesn't work, they just calculate possible fines into their bottom line, it's just another line item.
If corporations are people, and enjoy the same protections, then they should have the same punishments as well.
isn't the whole point that they control the means and resources to produce those goods, ad if you try to use them youself and produce your own goods then you will be shot for trespassing or locked up for stealing?
why is this a difficult concept for you? the answer is it isn't and you're being purposely obtuse.
The Bible needs to be taken in context of the time.
Right a book written by humans that were stuck on worshiping an anthropomorphic ego-centric god.
As well many of the moral stories still hold true.
Such as women are property and that a father can sell his daughter in slavery if it pleases him? That it is moral to take virgin girls as war prizes?
when placed in the context of the time it was written/commanded, the instructions concerning these things were a far cry better than the preceeding, as God tries to show us whats right and wrong, he slowly steered anything goes to put everyone else before yourself.
There is a whole list of rule regarding slavery, which in the context of the times it was written was the first occurance of a time limit for slaves, rules for their freedom and limits on abuse.
From working on a pyramid till death to free in seven years and a full member of society because of God....yah horrible.
nobody needs to disprove Middle Earth or Beowulf because nobody believes that they're literally true. more importantly, nobody uses them as justification for murder, rape, torture and slavery - or for the violent suppresion of rational inquiry.
No there are many other books that they can use for that.. like atlas shrugged.
The God in the Bible, particularly the Old Testament, is a physical being that is physically seen by the people like Moses. He communicates with people and performs miracles to prove his existence and power. Strangely, he is not omniscient and not all powerful. There are several times when God is tricked, negotiated with, shown to have incomplete knowledge or had his power overcome. The Bible is also clear that other gods exist and they do have power, but God of Abraham is simply the most powerful.
The Bible is kind of a crazy book that has very little to do with what's taught modern Churches. You really should read it some time.
Your name serves you well.
Moses is the only person ever allowed in god's presence, no one else was able to get that far, let alone be "physically" seen by people (it's written that seeing God in his full glory would instantly cause your death, so no, he wasn't a physical being or seen by anyone).
He communicated with Prophets who would then go and talk to the people, those prophets performed miracles in his name to prove who they were sent from.
there are no times when he is tricked or talked out of things or anything of that nature. have you read the book? He is both omniscient and omnipotent.
the only thing that is close to true is the misunderstanding that there are other gods, God refers to other gods but not because they exist, but because others see them as such. Whenever put to the test, other "gods" always fail next to the one True God, whether they be mans constructs/idols/or other entities (aka demons/angels).
Maybe you should re-read it... it has everything to do with Christianity and Judaism in their modern forms.
God is invisible (altho this isn't 100% correct either, a couple of people have been in his presence before but told him to look directly at him as it would be their demise, e.g. Moses was in god's presence and glowed with a godly radiance for three days afterwards), but he is not undetectable, he gives many ways to see for yourself that he exists and his deeds and promises ring true.
If you want to defend the status quo, that's fine, but when you try to condense this argument into a pithy one-liner, all you do is muddy the waters, and ensure no discussion can be had.
I'm not defending the status quo. I'm insulting people who think it's they're right to consume, and they shouldn't have to pay.
it is they are right to consume?
nice grammar idiot.
I'm not defending grammar, just insulting people who don't know how to properly use grammar.
You have no right to the content in my daily journal, or the diary of someone else. That's my content and theirs. Claiming that a movie or song is "culture" is laughable. I've not stated that content is "property" - they're your words. But if I produce content of some kind that does not give to a right to view/hear/read it.
nice strawman, let's explore both statements
1. "You have no right to the content in my daily journal, or the diary of someone else. That's my content and theirs." as long as they are unpublished you are absolutely correct.
2. Claiming that a movie or song is "culture" is laughable. absolutely wrong. just because you say something does not make it so, like in this case, where movies and songs are published works and once consumed by a culture, becomes part of that culture.
3. But if I produce content of some kind that does not give to a right to view/hear/read it. only if you keep it private.
you are confusing the issue by imposing an apple in between two oranges and then describing values and issues that only effect oranges.
As for the rest of the artists and their producers and their distributors: if you don't like paying what they ask, then don't consume their product. It's really very simple.
how's this for simple?
1. i don't like paying what they ask so i don't consume their product. 2. i don't like paying what they ask but i do consume their product.
in both cases the "producers" get nothing and (more importantly) they LOSE NOTHING (because this is a digital media).
You know in a few seconds you could have found several sources -- some decades old, so untainted by this issue or modern "right-wing exaggeration" -- that would have told you that the area is a near-lifeless desert with effectively no precipitation and practically no wind erosion.
even thinking about it for a second before posting would have made the poster realize that this sentence is just absurd:
"somehow I think it highly unlikely that people and animals avoided walking at that location for thousands of years as well as off course full exposure to weathering, wind and rain, which will obviously return the surface to uniform finish in short order."
but yet the images at the site nonetheless has existed for thousands of years.
By the way, channeling ancient Greek complaints about the youth isn't exactly original.
neither is making the same statement 4 times, in slightly different ways. (was probably more than 4 but i lost interest/count)
maybe make the false reference again as to how crime, pregnancy, and drug use is lower now than ever as well, because i'm still not tired of hearing it.
Really the crusades were just mass rape, pillage and murder with no regard or care for who they were killing. It is amusing when some try to justify it, people have always done shitty things in the names of the various religions and as long as religions continue to dominate a large proportion of the planet I am sure it will continue indefinitely.
wish i could mod you up but i got swept up in the commenting:)
"If you don't understand why Muslims are angry about drawings of Mohammed, then you are a big part of the problem."
I disagree, it is the observer of a belief that is charged with upholding that belief, people who are not muslim have NO OBLIGATION to uphold the teachings of islam.
If they are angry that is fine but misguided, if the think violence is a just response to that anger then they are wrong.
If you can't see where the road obviously leads when you expect other people who don't hold your beliefs to live a life that obeys your beliefs, then you are the problem.
Slashdot Mirror
"Try to explain 21st century life with the Internet, Space Stations, and Nuclear Weapons, to someone from that time. You'd be wasting your time."
reminds me of discussions of the bible where people complain about the generalizations made within...
or the idiotic way modern sets turn the backlight down in dark scenes. No, I'm not kidding, they really do that. Try watching Alien, or anything at all with a lot of night / dark scenes and most modern sets will ruin it completely.
Are you talking about the setting "dynamic contrast"?
I have two westinghouse bottom of the barrel TVs and they both have a toggle for this...
On the contrary, helping people to succeed does not necessarily mean that others do not succeed. There are not a finite number of "successes," as you imply is the case
.
A rising tide raises all boats.
There are a finite amount of resources and as such a finite amount of people who can enjoy "success", unless you are saying we can all be employed as CEOs and there are no minimum wage earners, which would be stupid to imply.
a rising tide raises all boats?? seriously wtf.
we're not talking about boats, and as an analogy it's flawed as granting people preferred status is in no way equal to a rising tide.
a better analogy would be handicaps level the playing field for all players, which is fine for a game, but this is life and the social-economic outcomes of people which affect their current lives and the lives of their children, i find your lack of perspective and blase` offensive.
So if you considered both string theory(?) of multiple universes formed from choices (all simultaneous outcomes exist until one choice is made then the rest collapse) and the paradox problem, it seems that a paradox is not actually a problem, as the logical outcome of that choice ( to kill your grandfather) would collapse itself leaving all the other choices/universes.
So basically, paradoxes cannot exist. what can exist does.
you do realize that ad hominem attacks on a website link are illustrative of a tiny and only partially functional mind?
aaah... ad hominem.. the last bastion of emotional and intellectual cowards.
if you actually read the article, you would see it did nothing but give facts. good luck arguing with those.
there were no "facts", it's a one line article and a graph attributed to nothing, fuck you asshole (there's a more appropriate ad hominem for you) for trying to drive up page views of your shitty site.
The principals are disposable, interchangeable, replaceable..
And if their predecessors were sent to jail, castrated, or both, how eager would they be to get the same punishment.
We've been fining companies the whole time and it doesn't work, they just calculate possible fines into their bottom line, it's just another line item.
If corporations are people, and enjoy the same protections, then they should have the same punishments as well.
Why not just equip a drone with an EMP, fly into the swarm, fzzzt, dead drones drop from the sky.
If you want to produce your own goods, purchase or grow your own raw materials, mix in your labour, and go for it.
How do you grow or get raw materials when all of the land is owned?
AKA what i meant when i said " they control the means and resources to produce those goods,"
isn't the whole point that they control the means and resources to produce those goods, ad if you try to use them youself and produce your own goods then you will be shot for trespassing or locked up for stealing?
why is this a difficult concept for you? the answer is it isn't and you're being purposely obtuse.
The Bible needs to be taken in context of the time.
Right a book written by humans that were stuck on worshiping an anthropomorphic ego-centric god.
As well many of the moral stories still hold true.
Such as women are property and that a father can sell his daughter in slavery if it pleases him? That it is moral to take virgin girls as war prizes?
when placed in the context of the time it was written/commanded, the instructions concerning these things were a far cry better than the preceeding, as God tries to show us whats right and wrong, he slowly steered anything goes to put everyone else before yourself.
There is a whole list of rule regarding slavery, which in the context of the times it was written was the first occurance of a time limit for slaves, rules for their freedom and limits on abuse.
From working on a pyramid till death to free in seven years and a full member of society because of God....yah horrible.
nobody needs to disprove Middle Earth or Beowulf because nobody believes that they're literally true. more importantly, nobody uses them as justification for murder, rape, torture and slavery - or for the violent suppresion of rational inquiry.
No there are many other books that they can use for that.. like atlas shrugged.
The God in the Bible, particularly the Old Testament, is a physical being that is physically seen by the people like Moses. He communicates with people and performs miracles to prove his existence and power. Strangely, he is not omniscient and not all powerful. There are several times when God is tricked, negotiated with, shown to have incomplete knowledge or had his power overcome. The Bible is also clear that other gods exist and they do have power, but God of Abraham is simply the most powerful.
The Bible is kind of a crazy book that has very little to do with what's taught modern Churches. You really should read it some time.
Your name serves you well.
Moses is the only person ever allowed in god's presence, no one else was able to get that far, let alone be "physically" seen by people (it's written that seeing God in his full glory would instantly cause your death, so no, he wasn't a physical being or seen by anyone).
He communicated with Prophets who would then go and talk to the people, those prophets performed miracles in his name to prove who they were sent from.
there are no times when he is tricked or talked out of things or anything of that nature. have you read the book? He is both omniscient and omnipotent.
the only thing that is close to true is the misunderstanding that there are other gods, God refers to other gods but not because they exist, but because others see them as such. Whenever put to the test, other "gods" always fail next to the one True God, whether they be mans constructs/idols/or other entities (aka demons/angels).
Maybe you should re-read it... it has everything to do with Christianity and Judaism in their modern forms.
God is invisible (altho this isn't 100% correct either, a couple of people have been in his presence before but told him to look directly at him as it would be their demise, e.g. Moses was in god's presence and glowed with a godly radiance for three days afterwards), but he is not undetectable, he gives many ways to see for yourself that he exists and his deeds and promises ring true.
The poor are unambitious.
hahahahahhahaahahhahahahahhaahaah omg that's awesome, do you do standup or just pithy comments on the internets?
If you want to defend the status quo, that's fine, but when you try to condense this argument into a pithy one-liner, all you do is muddy the waters, and ensure no discussion can be had.
I'm not defending the status quo. I'm insulting people who think it's they're right to consume, and they shouldn't have to pay.
it is they are right to consume?
nice grammar idiot.
I'm not defending grammar, just insulting people who don't know how to properly use grammar.
No one says you have to watch anything. Your attitude is more like, "I'll watch it and I don't care if I pay or not."
Since you are losing nothing, why do you care?
I thought urban farms came because people like farming.
nobody likes farming, everyone likes to eat.
You have no right to the content in my daily journal, or the diary of someone else. That's my content and theirs. Claiming that a movie or song is "culture" is laughable. I've not stated that content is "property" - they're your words. But if I produce content of some kind that does not give to a right to view/hear/read it.
nice strawman, let's explore both statements
1. "You have no right to the content in my daily journal, or the diary of someone else. That's my content and theirs."
as long as they are unpublished you are absolutely correct.
2. Claiming that a movie or song is "culture" is laughable.
absolutely wrong. just because you say something does not make it so, like in this case, where movies and songs are published works and once consumed by a culture, becomes part of that culture.
3. But if I produce content of some kind that does not give to a right to view/hear/read it.
only if you keep it private.
you are confusing the issue by imposing an apple in between two oranges and then describing values and issues that only effect oranges.
As for the rest of the artists and their producers and their distributors: if you don't like paying what they ask, then don't consume their product. It's really very simple.
how's this for simple?
1. i don't like paying what they ask so i don't consume their product.
2. i don't like paying what they ask but i do consume their product.
in both cases the "producers" get nothing and (more importantly) they LOSE NOTHING (because this is a digital media).
So i guess i have to ask...
why do you care?
You know in a few seconds you could have found several sources -- some decades old, so untainted by this issue or modern "right-wing exaggeration" -- that would have told you that the area is a near-lifeless desert with effectively no precipitation and practically no wind erosion.
even thinking about it for a second before posting would have made the poster realize that this sentence is just absurd:
"somehow I think it highly unlikely that people and animals avoided walking at that location for thousands of years as well as off course full exposure to weathering, wind and rain, which will obviously return the surface to uniform finish in short order."
but yet the images at the site nonetheless has existed for thousands of years.
In other words, "Get off my lawn!"
HAHAHAHAHA CUZ THEY'RE OLD... GET IT?
HAHAHAAHHAHA man that shiz never gets old or overused!!!
By the way, channeling ancient Greek complaints about the youth isn't exactly original.
neither is making the same statement 4 times, in slightly different ways. (was probably more than 4 but i lost interest/count)
maybe make the false reference again as to how crime, pregnancy, and drug use is lower now than ever as well, because i'm still not tired of hearing it.
so jesus was imaginary and invisible?
Really the crusades were just mass rape, pillage and murder with no regard or care for who they were killing. It is amusing when some try to justify it, people have always done shitty things in the names of the various religions and as long as religions continue to dominate a large proportion of the planet I am sure it will continue indefinitely.
wish i could mod you up but i got swept up in the commenting :)
"If you don't understand why Muslims are angry about drawings of Mohammed, then you are a big part of the problem."
I disagree, it is the observer of a belief that is charged with upholding that belief, people who are not muslim have NO OBLIGATION to uphold the teachings of islam.
If they are angry that is fine but misguided, if the think violence is a just response to that anger then they are wrong.
If you can't see where the road obviously leads when you expect other people who don't hold your beliefs to live a life that obeys your beliefs, then you are the problem.