That's one of the reasons for the 2 year set rotation. Only the last 2 years worth of cards are allowed in standard play. (There's also the obvious reason of requiring people to buy more cards.) There haven't been any cards with poison counters in at least the last 2 expansions (that's when I started paying attention to the game) and I'm pretty sure there's none in the upcoming one either. The developers try new and different things to try to keep the game fresh and interesting to long time players, and it seems to be hit and miss. I think they've been fairly decent at hitting, but poison counters are a good example of a miss, afaic.
The cards are now called "legendary creature" or "legendary land" etc. The cards have creature names or land names, but their type is legendary creature. You can have more than one legendary card in play, but not more than one with the same name. It's a slightly different rule, but your point is still valid. You cannot have 3 "Legendary Creature - Teysa, Orzhov Scion" cards in play at the same time. As soon as the second card is played, both the first and second card go bye-bye.
When do we get to call you guys intolerant, bigots, etc.?
Who is this "we" and "you guys" you are talking about? The "you guys" that are very vocal about thier stance on a particular issue is rarely the same "you guys" that are just as vocal the next month, when another hot topic issue comes up. You gave two specific examples in your post, but neither one has much to do with the viewpoint of a random person on slashdot.
The mainstream media ignores Joe Biden's retardation but jumps on Akin? Um, yeah . . that's the mainstream media and anyone who has been paying the least bit of attention knows to take the new yellow journalism with a grain of salt. Go vent your frustration at CNN or FoxNews forums if you want. You're preaching to the choir here.
A political party sees an issue as more than just black and white and so might have differing views when specific issues are addressed? Say it ain't so! Even if you completely missed the last century of government and you don't know that political parties have been throwing around hypocrasies and double standards for quite a while now, you should be able to realize a simple truth. Printing your own gun and copying someone's music CD is not quite the same thing.
If printing your own gun becomes legal, or stays legal, what have you, and then the Pirate Party says it is against people using a particular gun design because it has a copyright, then that would be a double standard. If the Pirate Party says it should be illegal to print your own gun, then no, that is not a double standard. That is two standards for two different things. Either way, if you have issues with political parties, take it up with them. Refer to my earlier statement about preaching to the choir.
Just to be clear, I'm not against you speaking your mind. But from the quoted bit from your post, you don't seem to be distinguishing your audience (us) from the people you have issues with (msm and political parties).
For someone with limited knowledge about 3D printing technology, the obvious question is: Does the 3D printed material have enough strength to withstand a small explosion in a compact space? What about the heat created from the explosion? Can it do so repeatedly?
We still don't know about Ryan, but the evidence now seems to indicate that, for Akin, the answer may be that only "forcible" rapes are "legitimate." This, IMHO, is a repugnant view and we should be probably inquire to make sure that the GOPs VP nominee doesn't believe it too.
Ryan cosponsored the bill, either he agrees with Akin or sponsors bills he does not understand. Logic + availiable evidence = conclusion.
Or he's a politician that made a compromise in order to get a co-sponsor for his person hood bill. Or lot's of other reasons that none of us really know the circumstances of . .
I'm not a Ryan or Akin supporter, but I think your is a gross oversimplification of the possibilities.
I propose that your personal definition of "weapon" is quite a bit more restrictive than the actual definition of the word. Let me help you out here with some outtakes from dictionary.com:
1) any instrument or device for use in attack or defense in combat, fighting, or war, as a sword, rifle, or cannon.
2) anything used against an opponent, adversary, or victim
3) any part or organ serving for attack or defense, as claws, horns, teeth, or stings.
There is no limitation in this definition that precludes the use of cultural norms, and there's no requirement that any type of weapon should necessarily affect everyone equally. Your use of an entirely private and made up definition for the word "weapon" in a public forum is what is illogical here.
No, GP is saying that the 7th and 10th commandments forbid you from coveting your neighbor's possessions, and unmarried women were considered one of those possessions. So if you covet your neighbor's 18 yr old unmarried daughter, you are breaking these commandments. GP makes a the jump that raping someone is an extreme form of coveting them, and so is covered under these commandments.
*I accidentally posted as AC, so I'm reposting as non-AC*
That is exactly the root substantive difference between most pro-lifers and pro-choicers. One side is adament that people are people from the very beginning. The other side says people don't become people until later, when they are more "people like" or something. What determines when someone becomes an actual human?
The strictly scientific/biological view might be that a human is human from conception because it has human DNA. Other views might say a person is human at birth; or at some period in the pregnancy when the fetus looks less like a lizard and more like a baby; or maybe even a few months after birth, when the baby gains its own personality and individual identity.
The two sides constantly talk past each other on this issue because they hold diametrically opposing viewpoints. Pro-lifers don't want to hear that fetuses are not living human beings and pro-choicers don't want to hear that killing a fetus is killing (murdering) a human. The whole abortion debate will continue on until a large majority of people are satisfied with the same answer to this question.
Nevermind; it looks like most of my questions were answered in TFA. I still think the use of the word "allegedly" implies some question about the causes when there really isn't any. Also, I before reading the article, I had the mindset of someone who couldn't understand how a mass of people could take a threat like that seriously. Then I realised the threat was targeted towards entire ethnicities (and people are already dying in neighboring states) so the threat would seem legitimate.
I don't see how someone could be arrested for spreading rumours. Isn't one person's "spreading rumours" another person's "spreading the word about an imminent threat"? It's not thier fault that an attack hasn't actually happened (yet). Or is the actual charge "knowingly spreading false rumours, in order to cause a panic" or something like that?
What is the extent of this "mass exodus"? It seems to me that if the mass is so large that it gets the attention of the national government, then the cause of the peoples' plight would be better understood than "allegedly due to threatening messages." Who is doing the allegations and why isn't there confirmation? So are these people leaving thier homes because of threatening messages or not? Is there even actually a mass of people leaving thier homes? What do THEY have to say about thier reasons?
Yes, I do, which is why I think it is perfectly reasonable Dunbal to assume that the AC he replied to was not one of the very few >67 year olds on./
Unless you are trying to imply something else . . ?
The doctor loses a lawsuit, pays higher insurance, and has to raise rates in order to pay that insurance. Tell me. how in your scenario is the doctor the real winner?
I think this isn't about any of that anymore. Now, this is about UK trying to save face with US. They are trying to tell little ol' Ecuador not to fuck with the UK. Damn if they lose all respect and diplomatic clout with the rest of the world in the process. In other words, there's someone with power in the UK. This is all about his ego.
France, where none of the diplomatic officials have any type of standing whatsoever?
And Britain does have a standing agreement with neighboring nations such as France, that allows France to capture anyone fleeing and evading capture from UK?
It takes enough time to drive from the Ecuadorian embassy to the chunnel that the two governments could coordinate so French police would be standing ready at the other side of the chunnel?
BTW for other readers, I am assuming this AC is the same AC that I've had a back and forth with further along this thread, because I asked him/her to point to a specific comment I made. If I'm correct, the two posts above this one should be read after the rest of this thread. Thanks
From context you should be able to see that I meant an egregious error that makes it's way through to publication in a research journal. I didn't mean some obscure problem that the scientist didn't account for. I used the term "screwing up" for a reason, because it implies something about the magnitude of the mistake, or, at the very least, it implies the scientist is being somehow neglectful. So you think random screw ups by incompetent scientists are A-OK to get published? That type of paper would only muddy the waters. confuse the issue at hand, and set the field back by however long it takes for the paper to get discredited. But surely I'M the one that's "clearly not a scientist." That is the best quote you could come up with, out of how many posts, clarifying my position? Yeah, maybe we should move on, because if that's the best you can come up with, and if you so wholeheartedly disagree with that sentence, then if YOU are a scientist, you are in name only. Perhaps you are so entrenched in the politics of your field that you forget what true science really is? Science is not about being sloppy, lazy, or imprecise, which is all you seem to be defending.
But let me make it easy on you. Howabout YOU tell ME how you think science REALLY is. Just tell us all, since I've CLEARLY got it wrong, why don't you enlighten us on what it is you think is right? You surely haven't countered any of my previous assertions, so instead of telling me how wrong I am, tell my your god-given truth, and then maybe I'll "get it"
1) The OK believes what has been in the press, which is that Ecuador has already decided to grant asylum. UK is now just waiting for the announcement.
2) The UK sent the letter before the announcement was made so that when it is made, they can immediately go in, and they can say they gave advance notice, and maybe they were hoping that little bit of extra pressure would cause Ecuador to reconsider.
It's only hypocrisy if you see the world in black & white, AND if you get to decide what is black and what is white. Usually, who is doing an action, and why, are just as important and the action itself.
Slashdot Mirror
Now this is truly "News for Nerds"
Too bad it fails at the "stuff that matters" part. (Just being snarky. I find the article interesting actually.)
This guy didn't just earn his nerd card, he earned a nerd obelisk in his front yard.
That sounds like it could be flavor text on a magic card . .
Yup, I should have rtfa before I replied (below). For completeness, the card text of Mirror Gallery is simply: The "legend rule" doesn't apply.
That's one of the reasons for the 2 year set rotation. Only the last 2 years worth of cards are allowed in standard play. (There's also the obvious reason of requiring people to buy more cards.) There haven't been any cards with poison counters in at least the last 2 expansions (that's when I started paying attention to the game) and I'm pretty sure there's none in the upcoming one either. The developers try new and different things to try to keep the game fresh and interesting to long time players, and it seems to be hit and miss. I think they've been fairly decent at hitting, but poison counters are a good example of a miss, afaic.
The cards are now called "legendary creature" or "legendary land" etc. The cards have creature names or land names, but their type is legendary creature. You can have more than one legendary card in play, but not more than one with the same name. It's a slightly different rule, but your point is still valid. You cannot have 3 "Legendary Creature - Teysa, Orzhov Scion" cards in play at the same time. As soon as the second card is played, both the first and second card go bye-bye.
When do we get to call you guys intolerant, bigots, etc.?
Who is this "we" and "you guys" you are talking about? The "you guys" that are very vocal about thier stance on a particular issue is rarely the same "you guys" that are just as vocal the next month, when another hot topic issue comes up. You gave two specific examples in your post, but neither one has much to do with the viewpoint of a random person on slashdot.
The mainstream media ignores Joe Biden's retardation but jumps on Akin? Um, yeah . . that's the mainstream media and anyone who has been paying the least bit of attention knows to take the new yellow journalism with a grain of salt. Go vent your frustration at CNN or FoxNews forums if you want. You're preaching to the choir here.
A political party sees an issue as more than just black and white and so might have differing views when specific issues are addressed? Say it ain't so! Even if you completely missed the last century of government and you don't know that political parties have been throwing around hypocrasies and double standards for quite a while now, you should be able to realize a simple truth. Printing your own gun and copying someone's music CD is not quite the same thing.
If printing your own gun becomes legal, or stays legal, what have you, and then the Pirate Party says it is against people using a particular gun design because it has a copyright, then that would be a double standard. If the Pirate Party says it should be illegal to print your own gun, then no, that is not a double standard. That is two standards for two different things. Either way, if you have issues with political parties, take it up with them. Refer to my earlier statement about preaching to the choir.
Just to be clear, I'm not against you speaking your mind. But from the quoted bit from your post, you don't seem to be distinguishing your audience (us) from the people you have issues with (msm and political parties).
For someone with limited knowledge about 3D printing technology, the obvious question is: Does the 3D printed material have enough strength to withstand a small explosion in a compact space? What about the heat created from the explosion? Can it do so repeatedly?
I'm the AC from above and you got awful close...
Ryan cosponsored the bill, either he agrees with Akin or sponsors bills he does not understand. Logic + availiable evidence = conclusion.
Or he's a politician that made a compromise in order to get a co-sponsor for his person hood bill. Or lot's of other reasons that none of us really know the circumstances of . .
I'm not a Ryan or Akin supporter, but I think your is a gross oversimplification of the possibilities.
1) any instrument or device for use in attack or defense in combat, fighting, or war, as a sword, rifle, or cannon.
2) anything used against an opponent, adversary, or victim
3) any part or organ serving for attack or defense, as claws, horns, teeth, or stings.
There is no limitation in this definition that precludes the use of cultural norms, and there's no requirement that any type of weapon should necessarily affect everyone equally. Your use of an entirely private and made up definition for the word "weapon" in a public forum is what is illogical here.
No, GP is saying that the 7th and 10th commandments forbid you from coveting your neighbor's possessions, and unmarried women were considered one of those possessions. So if you covet your neighbor's 18 yr old unmarried daughter, you are breaking these commandments. GP makes a the jump that raping someone is an extreme form of coveting them, and so is covered under these commandments.
*I accidentally posted as AC, so I'm reposting as non-AC* That is exactly the root substantive difference between most pro-lifers and pro-choicers. One side is adament that people are people from the very beginning. The other side says people don't become people until later, when they are more "people like" or something. What determines when someone becomes an actual human? The strictly scientific/biological view might be that a human is human from conception because it has human DNA. Other views might say a person is human at birth; or at some period in the pregnancy when the fetus looks less like a lizard and more like a baby; or maybe even a few months after birth, when the baby gains its own personality and individual identity. The two sides constantly talk past each other on this issue because they hold diametrically opposing viewpoints. Pro-lifers don't want to hear that fetuses are not living human beings and pro-choicers don't want to hear that killing a fetus is killing (murdering) a human. The whole abortion debate will continue on until a large majority of people are satisfied with the same answer to this question.
I don't see how someone could be arrested for spreading rumours. Isn't one person's "spreading rumours" another person's "spreading the word about an imminent threat"? It's not thier fault that an attack hasn't actually happened (yet). Or is the actual charge "knowingly spreading false rumours, in order to cause a panic" or something like that?
What is the extent of this "mass exodus"? It seems to me that if the mass is so large that it gets the attention of the national government, then the cause of the peoples' plight would be better understood than "allegedly due to threatening messages." Who is doing the allegations and why isn't there confirmation? So are these people leaving thier homes because of threatening messages or not? Is there even actually a mass of people leaving thier homes? What do THEY have to say about thier reasons?
Thank you. I wish I could be as eloquent as you are. You said everything I was trying to say but did a much better job at it!
Yes, I do, which is why I think it is perfectly reasonable Dunbal to assume that the AC he replied to was not one of the very few >67 year olds on ./
Unless you are trying to imply something else . . ?
The doctor loses a lawsuit, pays higher insurance, and has to raise rates in order to pay that insurance. Tell me. how in your scenario is the doctor the real winner?
I'd also have to wonder how many >67 yr olds are commenting on slashdot.
And it gives Ecuador a chance to stick it to the US, UK, and Sweden all at the same time!
I think this isn't about any of that anymore. Now, this is about UK trying to save face with US. They are trying to tell little ol' Ecuador not to fuck with the UK. Damn if they lose all respect and diplomatic clout with the rest of the world in the process. In other words, there's someone with power in the UK. This is all about his ego.
The chunnel connects on the other side to France?
France, where none of the diplomatic officials have any type of standing whatsoever?
And Britain does have a standing agreement with neighboring nations such as France, that allows France to capture anyone fleeing and evading capture from UK?
It takes enough time to drive from the Ecuadorian embassy to the chunnel that the two governments could coordinate so French police would be standing ready at the other side of the chunnel?
BTW for other readers, I am assuming this AC is the same AC that I've had a back and forth with further along this thread, because I asked him/her to point to a specific comment I made. If I'm correct, the two posts above this one should be read after the rest of this thread. Thanks
But let me make it easy on you. Howabout YOU tell ME how you think science REALLY is. Just tell us all, since I've CLEARLY got it wrong, why don't you enlighten us on what it is you think is right? You surely haven't countered any of my previous assertions, so instead of telling me how wrong I am, tell my your god-given truth, and then maybe I'll "get it"
1) The OK believes what has been in the press, which is that Ecuador has already decided to grant asylum. UK is now just waiting for the announcement.
2) The UK sent the letter before the announcement was made so that when it is made, they can immediately go in, and they can say they gave advance notice, and maybe they were hoping that little bit of extra pressure would cause Ecuador to reconsider.
It's only hypocrisy if you see the world in black & white, AND if you get to decide what is black and what is white. Usually, who is doing an action, and why, are just as important and the action itself.
And then all the fake-Assanges get charged with treason or aiding a wanted felon or whatever catch all crime they have in the UK.