No, it really is meant to accomplish something. They do look like they're doing something useful now, and that's nice, but if they can show some numbers in a few years to demonstrate they actually did something, well, how much better would that be for them?
Also, they're not completely amoral, at least not all the time. I doubt they're really apathetic about child abuse; ignorant of how to stop it, perhaps, but not uncaring.
Hey, congratulations! You can regurgitate rhetoric you read on slashdot a thousand times! You're only one step away from being capable of actually understanding what you say! Don't give up... almost there!
Oh, for CHRIST'S SAKE. Grow a pair, and fucking stand up for yourself and for others. Don't want to vote "not guilty" because you're worried about some OTHER cop planting cocaine on you and arresting you months later for letting some petty thief go? You are the worst sort of person. If you die painfully, the world will be a better place.
Nope. Improper spelling doesn't _necessarily_ negate an argument, but it certainly can. When your argument involves you acting as though you know a lot about the subject at hand, misspelling a really basic, important term in the field you're pretending knowledge of suddenly displays how little you actually know. Your post sounds nice and analytical, and I want to believe you know a lot about medical procedures and the legality of states limiting them, but when I find out you don't know enough medicine to spell "chemotherapy" correctly, it's a lot more difficult to believe.
Oh, what a shame. You were doing so well too. To an uneducated eye you probably even looked like you knew what you were talking about. Better luck next time.
Jesus Christ, you're so naive it hurts. Using an issue to get re-elected doesn't mean a politician fixes a problem, it means he talks about a problem (which is the other party's fault) and promises to fix it - until after the election, when he does whatever he was going to do anyway.
Listen, the world has enough stupid people without apparently intelligent people like you acting stupid. Codons aren't words, sequences of codons aren't sentences, and the genetic code isn't the word of God. They are sequences of molecules, and while it might be interesting to fit them to a millennia-old allegory by a Semitic preacher, it's by no means a useful activity to try to validate your misplaced faith in a nonexistent God. Study biology in detail, and investigate models of evolutionary systems, and you'll see why an intelligent designer isn't necessary to explain anything. At all.
Also, don't describe biology in the terminology of computer science. That's just dumb. Organisms aren't instantiations of foundation classes, they're complex series of self-replicating chemical reactions. Thinking of it like a computer program makes you picture someone outside, which is wrong.
oh god, it's true! I'm listening to Robert Johnson using the same progression! That guy's just a shamelessly exploitative pop singer! He should learn to play better music, then more serious music fans will respect him.
The main problem I see with your approach is that attractive people don't use dating services - they've already got dates. You'd have to rate potential matches as more or less unattractive.
That's _exactly_ what most ID cards have. You think nobody thought to encode a few digits for a serial number on an ID so lost cards could be deactivated? I'm fully in support of underestimating people's intelligence, but that would be a bit extreme.
Would you consider it moral for someone to tell you "Pay a group of people for something someone _else_ has worked hard to create"? No, the AC is an ass.
I think Purple Chick might have gotten his/her hands on the Sgt. Pepper's master tapes or copies. The Sgt. Pepper Deluxe bootleg has separated mulitrack recordings for Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, With A Little Help From My Friends, She's Leaving Home, and A Day in the Life. That shouldn't be possible without copies of the multitrack masters (then again, I thought the multitracks of Who's Next were lost, and there they are in Rock Band).
That said, I don't know how good Purple Chick's transfers are. They sound good to me, but I'm not an audiophile, so others might prefer the vinyl transfers. Personally, I'm just enjoying the hell out of the drum+bass track of Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band.
By the way, if you're really worried about hearing Beatles extra takes and the like, grab A/B Road. It'll keep you busy for YEARS. For the unaware: that's the complete, unedited tape reels from the Get Back sessions (which became Let It Be). 97 hours of studio sessions, with dialogue, warmups, rehearsals, and recorded takes, spliced together into the most continuous form possible by an anonymous bootlegger named Purple Chick and released free on the Internet. Available on the same site as the above.
On topic, given that many MALE scientists believe in imaginary superbeings that were made up by some random illiterate guy some thousands of years ago, I don't think they are in any position to judge their girlfriends for basing their behaviour on what they read in magazines.
That's a good point! Because many people who ALSO HAVE PENISES believe in God, male atheists aren't in a position to judge their girlfriends based on their religion. Makes perfect fucking sense.
Huh.... you know, I think I have to concede this argument. I had a conversation about music last night with three friends who steadfastly refused to listen, instead talking through the first three minutes of a Ted Nugent song about how much they hated it (despite having not actually listened to it). One then described how he didn't like old music because it feels "empty", then tried to argue it wasn't because of the smaller frequency range compared to modern music, but because all old music (Cream, specifically) is just not good music. Another then argued that her friends are better judges of popular music than Robert Christgau.
So, I think I understand why you dislike my closed-mindedness so much. It's a bit like banging your head against a wall, isn't it? I apologize if I've frustrated you like they frustrated me.
NO. Proof is NOT necessary because only the claim to His existence is ludicrous. Proof against is not necessary, because nonexistence is the default state (and not just of ridiculous things which obviously don't exist). I agree that any large group of people has the ability to exploit people, but few non-religious groups form majorities of most populations, like religion does.
This is bizarre. I can't believe I'm having a serious conversation with a guy who believes in unicorns and the Easter Bunny.
You're speaking under the assumption that closed-mindedness is a bad thing. When the concept you've closed your mind to is as ridiculous as the existence an omnipotent, omnipresent, conscious deity who requires praise from humans, it's not a bad thing at all. It reflects confidence and correctness.
And yes, exploitable people is a problem with people, and there are always ways to exploit the populace, but some things make people much more susceptible to exploitation. A 2-billion-strong group of people encouraging each other to turn the other cheek while believing in things that don't exist is a very good example.
You seem like a smart guy; you need to cut that shit out. There's enough stupidity in the world without intelligent people acting stupid. Belief in God is ridiculous and ignorant, and, incidentally, gives just a tiny bit more power to a lot of people who exploit it (ruthlessly) to make the world a worse place in which to live.
I realize how bitter and arrogant that sounds, but I've just had an unhappy love affair, so I don't see why anybody else should have a good time. I'll probably regret it later. Be assured, however, that I stand by what I've said, and these are my true thoughts on the matter. Reconsider your ridiculous beliefs, and make the world a better and more honest place to live.
These are "top students", not necessarily smart ones. There's usually a difference. There's little in this world in which the only way to succeed is true intelligence; hard work, organization, and time investment can almost always substitute (and are usually more important).
Eratosthenes was not one of the ancients of whom I spoke; he was a rationally-thinking Greek and not a desert-wandering Semite farmer. I assume you can find some differences between the two. And claiming that God's non-existence requires no proof is more like saying no human life exists on Mars - at one point it was really possible, and a rational person could have believed it, but now - though definitive proof doesn't exist - no rational, knowledgeable person anywhere in the world believes there are humans on Mars. At this point it's a ridiculous proposition, though technically unproven.
Slashdot Mirror
If this bores you, every lkml thread would cause your head to explode.
No, it really is meant to accomplish something. They do look like they're doing something useful now, and that's nice, but if they can show some numbers in a few years to demonstrate they actually did something, well, how much better would that be for them?
Also, they're not completely amoral, at least not all the time. I doubt they're really apathetic about child abuse; ignorant of how to stop it, perhaps, but not uncaring.
Hey, congratulations! You can regurgitate rhetoric you read on slashdot a thousand times! You're only one step away from being capable of actually understanding what you say! Don't give up... almost there!
Right Whale is only the common name; they have scientific names too, which are unambiguous. Those are the ones used to define protections.
Oh, for CHRIST'S SAKE. Grow a pair, and fucking stand up for yourself and for others. Don't want to vote "not guilty" because you're worried about some OTHER cop planting cocaine on you and arresting you months later for letting some petty thief go? You are the worst sort of person. If you die painfully, the world will be a better place.
Nope. Improper spelling doesn't _necessarily_ negate an argument, but it certainly can. When your argument involves you acting as though you know a lot about the subject at hand, misspelling a really basic, important term in the field you're pretending knowledge of suddenly displays how little you actually know. Your post sounds nice and analytical, and I want to believe you know a lot about medical procedures and the legality of states limiting them, but when I find out you don't know enough medicine to spell "chemotherapy" correctly, it's a lot more difficult to believe.
Jesus Christ, you're so naive it hurts. Using an issue to get re-elected doesn't mean a politician fixes a problem, it means he talks about a problem (which is the other party's fault) and promises to fix it - until after the election, when he does whatever he was going to do anyway.
Of course it can be done in a lab. We have not done it yet, but obviously I don't need to explain that that implies nothing about whether it can be.
Listen, the world has enough stupid people without apparently intelligent people like you acting stupid. Codons aren't words, sequences of codons aren't sentences, and the genetic code isn't the word of God. They are sequences of molecules, and while it might be interesting to fit them to a millennia-old allegory by a Semitic preacher, it's by no means a useful activity to try to validate your misplaced faith in a nonexistent God. Study biology in detail, and investigate models of evolutionary systems, and you'll see why an intelligent designer isn't necessary to explain anything. At all.
Also, don't describe biology in the terminology of computer science. That's just dumb. Organisms aren't instantiations of foundation classes, they're complex series of self-replicating chemical reactions. Thinking of it like a computer program makes you picture someone outside, which is wrong.
oh god, it's true! I'm listening to Robert Johnson using the same progression! That guy's just a shamelessly exploitative pop singer! He should learn to play better music, then more serious music fans will respect him.
The main problem I see with your approach is that attractive people don't use dating services - they've already got dates. You'd have to rate potential matches as more or less unattractive.
That's _exactly_ what most ID cards have. You think nobody thought to encode a few digits for a serial number on an ID so lost cards could be deactivated? I'm fully in support of underestimating people's intelligence, but that would be a bit extreme.
That's what matria said, you idiot.
Would you consider it moral for someone to tell you "Pay a group of people for something someone _else_ has worked hard to create"? No, the AC is an ass.
I think Purple Chick might have gotten his/her hands on the Sgt. Pepper's master tapes or copies. The Sgt. Pepper Deluxe bootleg has separated mulitrack recordings for Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, With A Little Help From My Friends, She's Leaving Home, and A Day in the Life. That shouldn't be possible without copies of the multitrack masters (then again, I thought the multitracks of Who's Next were lost, and there they are in Rock Band).
That said, I don't know how good Purple Chick's transfers are. They sound good to me, but I'm not an audiophile, so others might prefer the vinyl transfers. Personally, I'm just enjoying the hell out of the drum+bass track of Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band.
http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/showthread.php?t=42540
Still a seeder left. Grab it while you can.
By the way, if you're really worried about hearing Beatles extra takes and the like, grab A/B Road. It'll keep you busy for YEARS. For the unaware: that's the complete, unedited tape reels from the Get Back sessions (which became Let It Be). 97 hours of studio sessions, with dialogue, warmups, rehearsals, and recorded takes, spliced together into the most continuous form possible by an anonymous bootlegger named Purple Chick and released free on the Internet. Available on the same site as the above.
Huh.... you know, I think I have to concede this argument. I had a conversation about music last night with three friends who steadfastly refused to listen, instead talking through the first three minutes of a Ted Nugent song about how much they hated it (despite having not actually listened to it). One then described how he didn't like old music because it feels "empty", then tried to argue it wasn't because of the smaller frequency range compared to modern music, but because all old music (Cream, specifically) is just not good music. Another then argued that her friends are better judges of popular music than Robert Christgau.
So, I think I understand why you dislike my closed-mindedness so much. It's a bit like banging your head against a wall, isn't it? I apologize if I've frustrated you like they frustrated me.
NO. Proof is NOT necessary because only the claim to His existence is ludicrous. Proof against is not necessary, because nonexistence is the default state (and not just of ridiculous things which obviously don't exist). I agree that any large group of people has the ability to exploit people, but few non-religious groups form majorities of most populations, like religion does.
This is bizarre. I can't believe I'm having a serious conversation with a guy who believes in unicorns and the Easter Bunny.
You're speaking under the assumption that closed-mindedness is a bad thing. When the concept you've closed your mind to is as ridiculous as the existence an omnipotent, omnipresent, conscious deity who requires praise from humans, it's not a bad thing at all. It reflects confidence and correctness.
And yes, exploitable people is a problem with people, and there are always ways to exploit the populace, but some things make people much more susceptible to exploitation. A 2-billion-strong group of people encouraging each other to turn the other cheek while believing in things that don't exist is a very good example.
You seem like a smart guy; you need to cut that shit out. There's enough stupidity in the world without intelligent people acting stupid. Belief in God is ridiculous and ignorant, and, incidentally, gives just a tiny bit more power to a lot of people who exploit it (ruthlessly) to make the world a worse place in which to live.
I realize how bitter and arrogant that sounds, but I've just had an unhappy love affair, so I don't see why anybody else should have a good time. I'll probably regret it later. Be assured, however, that I stand by what I've said, and these are my true thoughts on the matter. Reconsider your ridiculous beliefs, and make the world a better and more honest place to live.
The first word of your post agrees that, while not disprovable, belief in God is a ridiculous thing. Yet you still believe?
These are "top students", not necessarily smart ones. There's usually a difference. There's little in this world in which the only way to succeed is true intelligence; hard work, organization, and time investment can almost always substitute (and are usually more important).
Eratosthenes was not one of the ancients of whom I spoke; he was a rationally-thinking Greek and not a desert-wandering Semite farmer. I assume you can find some differences between the two. And claiming that God's non-existence requires no proof is more like saying no human life exists on Mars - at one point it was really possible, and a rational person could have believed it, but now - though definitive proof doesn't exist - no rational, knowledgeable person anywhere in the world believes there are humans on Mars. At this point it's a ridiculous proposition, though technically unproven.