I've edited articles as an anonymous nobody, and haven't had the content revoked. Granted, I haven't started new articles. But, 25% reject isn't so bad, considering the average human's writing capability. People have an inflated opinion of their own ability. Experienced users have less rejects because they are more skilled at formatting articles and are more knowledgeable about the wikipedia point of view. What, do you really expect the average Joe's contribution to be as reliable as a seasoned wiki editor?
It looks like you totally failed to comprehend the parent of your post. Ey didn't say sex between a 15 year old and a 20 year old is ok. Ey said it isn't rape. Statutory rape and rape are two different crimes.
I suppose there's an art to saying something so blatantly foolish that people think you are insightful.
Man is not the measure of all things. You can analyze the biological basis for your senses, which comes from your sensory organs and your brain. It's clear that these sensory organs grab information from the outside world. There are other minds out there, not only humans, but animals, too. They also have sensory organs, and they also see the universe around them. It most certainly is egotistical to assert that your view is all that exists, and the universe doesn't.
Study some cosmology or astronomy, which explain some of the current aspects of the universe, like proportions of elements, appearance of stars, CMB, etc, by things which have occurred in the long past, before there were humans. You think all this just came into being when you were born?
(If I sound sarcastic or rude, it's because it's better for everyone if foolishness is rebuked outright and not confused with philosophy.)
overgeneralizing here, but: Poor people are poor because they don't resort to this kind of shit. It's rich people you have to worry about. Rich people are never satisfied with what they have.
$50,000 gets you a degree in a low quality university.
I don't know what you are calling a low quality university, but there are many good universities which will cost you less (provided you live in the right state).
Hmm, I'm in the tough position of defending something that I believe in, but know is ultimately arbitrary at a fundamental level.
That which is natural isn't necessarily right. You, me, we all live to survive, and propagate our genes. That's what evolution has programmed us to do. It's natural to work together and protect each other from dangers, which helps us to survive. It's also natural to rape, consume resources, and destroy competitors, as long as it satisfies our programming. Whatever we do, Nature doesn't care. Nature has no sense of right and wrong. But humans do.
Nature doesn't need to provide ethics because human societies can create their own. Sure, there are a bunch of disagreements over what constitutes proper ethics, but at least we are better off than having no ethics at all, which is why this propensity for morality has evolved into our conscience. Almost everyone agrees on the golden rule, and I would say there is some instinctual backing to this. Morality helps us to survive as a species.
You dislike environmentalism because it tries to put guilt on you for being yourself. Why should you care about the environment? Because you should have the empathy to not condemn future generations to a less hospitable world with no fish and violent weather and toxic skies. There's no absolute power you have to answer to, but you still have to live with yourself.
I'm not here to support extremism, but how can you suggest that violent destruction in the name of belief is somehow "wrong", if you don't believe in right and wrong? Terrorists are just another example of life.
There's no ultimate authority, but there still is authority, and you are wrong.
There's a lot of difference between today's civilizations and any civilizations of the past. It's a whole different ball game. There's too many people and too much information floating around for any major discoveries too be lost, barring some huge catastrophe of scale not seen yet.
There won't be any impetus to move the planet because the natural solar progression will be far too slow to notice within a lifetime. The weather will get more and more unfriendly, but to anyone alive, it will have always been so. At some point, the population will start to decline, due to environmental pressures. It will slowly decline until there's not enough humans to do anything about it.
Humans or neo-humans couldn't move the Earth more farther out, because it would be too large a shock to the population. The population would have evolved to match the conditions of the Sun because the Sun evolution is long compared to the time it takes to evolve. At some point, the conditions on the Earth will be too harsh for evolution to cope with, and life will slowly die out.
It's like the frog in the slowly boiling pot aphorism.
Scilab numerical algebra system unxutils native ports of some unix utilities to Win32 speedcrunch calculator vim better than emacs Sumatra PDF fast clean pdf viewer
Slashdot Mirror
How will this discourage spam if the spammers are just using pwned accounts?
I've edited articles as an anonymous nobody, and haven't had the content revoked. Granted, I haven't started new articles. But, 25% reject isn't so bad, considering the average human's writing capability. People have an inflated opinion of their own ability. Experienced users have less rejects because they are more skilled at formatting articles and are more knowledgeable about the wikipedia point of view. What, do you really expect the average Joe's contribution to be as reliable as a seasoned wiki editor?
And, what if you are not so young and not so healthy?
politicians cater toward the masses (or secretly, to themselves)
And what's wrong with a half-assed punishment? Why must a punishment be whole-ass or none at all?
So the only punishment allowed for a crime is jail? There's no law against unusual punishments as long as they are not cruel.
That said, the sex offender registry is pretty cruel from the sheer number of ways that it fucks up one's life. It's a disproportionate punishment.
The legislators must be watching too much urination porn. It's not normal to associate urination with sex.
Any upright, law-biding C programmer knows that you gotta do this: ...
#define MYCONST 8
if (C==MYCONST)
you sex offender
It looks like you totally failed to comprehend the parent of your post. Ey didn't say sex between a 15 year old and a 20 year old is ok. Ey said it isn't rape. Statutory rape and rape are two different crimes.
I suppose there's an art to saying something so blatantly foolish that people think you are insightful.
Man is not the measure of all things. You can analyze the biological basis for your senses, which comes from your sensory organs and your brain. It's clear that these sensory organs grab information from the outside world. There are other minds out there, not only humans, but animals, too. They also have sensory organs, and they also see the universe around them. It most certainly is egotistical to assert that your view is all that exists, and the universe doesn't.
Study some cosmology or astronomy, which explain some of the current aspects of the universe, like proportions of elements, appearance of stars, CMB, etc, by things which have occurred in the long past, before there were humans. You think all this just came into being when you were born?
(If I sound sarcastic or rude, it's because it's better for everyone if foolishness is rebuked outright and not confused with philosophy.)
...the overwhelming case of poor individuals with bad credit scores is due to poor financial decisions.
This article "Medical bills prompt more than 60 percent of U.S. bankruptcies" says otherwise.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/06/05/bankruptcy.medical.bills/
overgeneralizing here, but:
Poor people are poor because they don't resort to this kind of shit. It's rich people you have to worry about. Rich people are never satisfied with what they have.
$50,000 gets you a degree in a low quality university.
I don't know what you are calling a low quality university, but there are many good universities which will cost you less (provided you live in the right state).
Back to the original point though - humans are just one more example of life. Another species. Another part of the universe.
No we're not. We are the universe. Without us, there is no life, no universe.
Um, no. Talk about inflated ego.
Hmm, I'm in the tough position of defending something that I believe in, but know is ultimately arbitrary at a fundamental level.
That which is natural isn't necessarily right. You, me, we all live to survive, and propagate our genes. That's what evolution has programmed us to do. It's natural to work together and protect each other from dangers, which helps us to survive. It's also natural to rape, consume resources, and destroy competitors, as long as it satisfies our programming. Whatever we do, Nature doesn't care. Nature has no sense of right and wrong. But humans do.
Nature doesn't need to provide ethics because human societies can create their own. Sure, there are a bunch of disagreements over what constitutes proper ethics, but at least we are better off than having no ethics at all, which is why this propensity for morality has evolved into our conscience. Almost everyone agrees on the golden rule, and I would say there is some instinctual backing to this. Morality helps us to survive as a species.
You dislike environmentalism because it tries to put guilt on you for being yourself. Why should you care about the environment? Because you should have the empathy to not condemn future generations to a less hospitable world with no fish and violent weather and toxic skies. There's no absolute power you have to answer to, but you still have to live with yourself.
I'm not here to support extremism, but how can you suggest that violent destruction in the name of belief is somehow "wrong", if you don't believe in right and wrong? Terrorists are just another example of life.
There's no ultimate authority, but there still is authority, and you are wrong.
There's a lot of difference between today's civilizations and any civilizations of the past. It's a whole different ball game. There's too many people and too much information floating around for any major discoveries too be lost, barring some huge catastrophe of scale not seen yet.
There won't be any impetus to move the planet because the natural solar progression will be far too slow to notice within a lifetime. The weather will get more and more unfriendly, but to anyone alive, it will have always been so. At some point, the population will start to decline, due to environmental pressures. It will slowly decline until there's not enough humans to do anything about it.
Humans or neo-humans couldn't move the Earth more farther out, because it would be too large a shock to the population. The population would have evolved to match the conditions of the Sun because the Sun evolution is long compared to the time it takes to evolve. At some point, the conditions on the Earth will be too harsh for evolution to cope with, and life will slowly die out.
It's like the frog in the slowly boiling pot aphorism.
I dunno, the Genesis controller was just too big for me when I was a kid.
No, velocity sensitivity doesn't react to pressure, but how fast you strike the key. The term you are looking for is aftertouch.
I find myself really wanting one of those number pad mice.
Scilab numerical algebra system
unxutils native ports of some unix utilities to Win32
speedcrunch calculator
vim better than emacs
Sumatra PDF fast clean pdf viewer
For God's Sake, NO. Maybe it's time to fork.
learn about projectile motion, angles, and parabolas..
I dunno, Where in the Foo is Carmen Sandiego is pretty overtly educational, but it was still fun and successful.
Has it ever been shown that working out puzzles improves intelligence?