Do you believe in gravity, then? Because there are arguably more problems with the theory of gravity than with the theory of evolution. We can't even come close to describing how gravity works in the natural world without assuming that the universe is affected more by unobservable quantities than that which we can detect. "Macroevolution" (a word kind of like "irregardless" which provides a convenient flag that a person is ignorant) has been directly observed. Higg's bosons/gravitons have not (nor have they even been indirectly observed).
Intelligent Design isn't a PR campaign, just like Scientology isn't a cult. I mean, obviously nobody planned to use ID as a wedge strategy, just like L. Ron Hubbard never planned to start his own religion. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and tastes good with a cherry glaze, clearly it's a walrus.
"Intelligent Design" is a scheme concocted in order to sneak the teaching of Creationism into American public (i.e. state) schools: nothing more, nothing less. Your views would be more accurately described by the term "teleology."
It's called freedom of association. He has no obligation to associate with people he doesn't want to. And if you claim that he has to because it's a public space, then why can E3 keep out anyone at all? This isn't about morality; it's about improving the image of the convention, and trying to focus on what it is really about.
Why should Apple cripple their machines with inferior firmware, getting rid of a thing like Firewire target disk mode? You are saying that they did something that really doesn't matter, and that instead they should have done something that does matter in a bad way.
Change is bad. Culture is being lost. Morals are degrading. The language is being corrupted. People have been saying this for as long as history exists, yet we're still around today. If thousands of years of wanton self-annhiliation hasn't destroyed humanity, then I don't think anything is going to destroy Ukrainian culture in your lifetime, or your grandchildren's lifetimes, or their great grandchildren's lifetimes. Sure, people will still be complaining that it really is happening, but they've been doing that since long before you were born anyway.
The original phrase is definitely "champ at the bit," but people say "chomp at the bit" because it does make enough sense, and it does sound right to most speakers. It's not entirely ignorant, just sand-blind:)
There are some words, like "alright," which are not commonly accepted in formal writing, but which are gaining traction and inevitably will be. If a person knows about "all right" and "alright" and consciously chooses "alright" in the name of modernity, I am fine with it.
There are other words, like "irregardless," the use of which (for better or worse) sends a signal that the writer is pretentious or uneducated. I am not saying that the word is indefensible (though I wouldn't defend it); however, you won't always be there to defend your use of it, and when you aren't people are likely to assume that you are simply ignorant.
Yes, this is a matter of prescriptive versus descriptive grammar, but there is definitely a time when prescriptive grammar is appropriate. Say "irregardless" all you want, but don't use it in a formal paper. There's no point in infuriating your English teachers; for heaven's sake, they have to deal with people who think that "alot" is a word.
"Virii" isn't like "alright" or "chomping at the bit" because there is no battle at all. It is intentional slang. Quoque, Latine "viri" non "viruses" sed "men" est.
As a loaned phrase, "hoi polloi" is an indivisible unit of meaning in English, and it is perfectly acceptable (albeit counterintuitive) to use an English article with it.
Artificial, natural, they're both the same physically. But the difference is human and intangible.
With a DeBeers diamond, an African child may well have died a result of its production. That's the human touch, and that's why people should be more impressed by a genuine natural diamond.
It is already known there that are enough stray particles in space that a craft moving at relativistic speeds would need a good deal of shielding against them. Somewhat counterintuitively, deep space has a higher density of particles than inside the solar system, since the pressure of the solar wind actually keeps particles from deep space at bay.
Apparently you aren't the only person who dislikes Apple's use of XML, as the lameness filter doesn't seem to like SGML tags, I converted them to whitespace which hopefully shouldn't be too confusing.
There are certainly valid complaints about Apple property lists (like how keys and values are associated sequentially instead of being enclosed in a parent tag), but I think it's pretty reasonable. And property lists can be saved in a binary form too (or converted with plutil), and iTunes keeps a binary copy.
There is a fundamental difference between inciting harm and having an offensive opinion. Guess what, saying, "Kill all Jews!" is already illegal in the U.S.
But banning racist speech is not a slippery slope, you're right. It enshrines the principle that offensive speech which society does not approve of can be censored. There is no slippery slope, there is only a cliff, and Germany has jumped off blindly hoping that they'll land in water instead of on rocks. It isn't a matter of outright tyranny, but today's "there was violence over racism" can easily be tomorrow's "there was violence over dissent." The U.S. imprisoned people merely for being anarchists in the past without being a police state.
Because the editors (not just the admins) are people who actually contribute to it. But the reason for this policy is so that a person can't just create 50 new sockpuppet accounts and have them all vote.
Unlike most Americans, I recall that as a "child", (12, 13, etc.) I was quite horny and would have welcomed the opportunity to have intercourse with an adult, regardless of whether there was a camera rolling or not. I thus don't see "child porn" as a universal evil.
Yes, a "higher" percentage of youth than adults are intellectually and emotionally incapable of handling sex. But, again, a "higher" percentage of blacks than whites are criminals. Why is it justifiable to pass laws restricting all youths on such logic, but not similar laws restricting all blacks? They are one and the same, and I do not accept that either is morally defensible.
The idea of an "age of majority" strikes me precisely the same as the idea of a "maximum permissable fraction of Colored blood" would strike you. It's ludicrous. People are individuals and should be judged as such, and restricting all young people because a greater percentage of young people are (immature, unintelligent, whatever) is no different from restricting all black people because a greater percentage of back people are (uneducated, criminal, violent, speak in Ebonics, whatever). So far, the "best" counterargument I've heard to my stance is "well, you grow out of childhood, but you don't grow out of your race". It speaks volumes that this is the most logical counterargument anyone can seem to muster.
We were all kids once. To me, an intelligent and capable adult who doesn't care about the rights of intelligent and capable youths is somewhat akin to an African-American who doesn't care about slavery or starvation or HIV in Africa. We all came out of that oppression, and it is up to us to fight it.
Your assertion that sex between a youth and an adult necessarily constitutes "abuse" is ridiculous (but typical). I would not be surprised if, 100 years ago, sex between a black and a white was similarly considered "abuse" (possibly to both parties involved).
I believe there's a term for this used in law. It goes: res ipsa loquitur.
You do have a pretty low uid. Maybe you aren't a troll. Maybe you really are sincerely just an unbelievably naive moron. It is certainly possible to debate whether or not children should be afforded the same rights as adults, but by "debate" I mean "argue rationally" and not "spew shit out of one's mouth," so I doubt anyone could debate anything with you.
And lest anyone should think that I'm a troll, check my quotes yourself: Caspian reallysaidthemall.
Wow, nice troll. I thought you were just kind of stupid at first, but I guess I was wrong.
You know, I could say that I wish you had had sex with a 25-year-old when you were 12 just so you could see how fucked up you would be now, but I don't. I'm actually a compassionate human being. Guess what? Being smart for your age (not just thinking you are, but actually genuinely being incredibly smart for your age) doesn't make sex with someone that older any less abusive, even when one is a willing participant and "knows what they're doing."
Slashdot Mirror
Do you believe in gravity, then? Because there are arguably more problems with the theory of gravity than with the theory of evolution. We can't even come close to describing how gravity works in the natural world without assuming that the universe is affected more by unobservable quantities than that which we can detect. "Macroevolution" (a word kind of like "irregardless" which provides a convenient flag that a person is ignorant) has been directly observed. Higg's bosons/gravitons have not (nor have they even been indirectly observed).
Intelligent Design isn't a PR campaign, just like Scientology isn't a cult. I mean, obviously nobody planned to use ID as a wedge strategy, just like L. Ron Hubbard never planned to start his own religion. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and tastes good with a cherry glaze, clearly it's a walrus.
"Intelligent Design" is a scheme concocted in order to sneak the teaching of Creationism into American public (i.e. state) schools: nothing more, nothing less. Your views would be more accurately described by the term "teleology."
That's what I meant; had they gone with BIOS instead of EFI, they couldn't have maintained the features OpenFirmware had.
I can assure you that the Man Moth is no myth--he is very much a reality.
It's called freedom of association. He has no obligation to associate with people he doesn't want to. And if you claim that he has to because it's a public space, then why can E3 keep out anyone at all? This isn't about morality; it's about improving the image of the convention, and trying to focus on what it is really about.
Why should Apple cripple their machines with inferior firmware, getting rid of a thing like Firewire target disk mode? You are saying that they did something that really doesn't matter, and that instead they should have done something that does matter in a bad way.
This is a different meaning than how the word is used to refer to dark matter and gravitons, however, so your argument is entirely semantics.
How is God a theory? God isn't even a falsifiable model.
I'd be happy enough if humans could do this.
You mean like SSE3, which the Core Duo has?
Change is bad. Culture is being lost. Morals are degrading. The language is being corrupted. People have been saying this for as long as history exists, yet we're still around today. If thousands of years of wanton self-annhiliation hasn't destroyed humanity, then I don't think anything is going to destroy Ukrainian culture in your lifetime, or your grandchildren's lifetimes, or their great grandchildren's lifetimes. Sure, people will still be complaining that it really is happening, but they've been doing that since long before you were born anyway.
The original phrase is definitely "champ at the bit," but people say "chomp at the bit" because it does make enough sense, and it does sound right to most speakers. It's not entirely ignorant, just sand-blind :)
There are other words, like "irregardless," the use of which (for better or worse) sends a signal that the writer is pretentious or uneducated. I am not saying that the word is indefensible (though I wouldn't defend it); however, you won't always be there to defend your use of it, and when you aren't people are likely to assume that you are simply ignorant.
Yes, this is a matter of prescriptive versus descriptive grammar, but there is definitely a time when prescriptive grammar is appropriate. Say "irregardless" all you want, but don't use it in a formal paper. There's no point in infuriating your English teachers; for heaven's sake, they have to deal with people who think that "alot" is a word.
"Virii" isn't like "alright" or "chomping at the bit" because there is no battle at all. It is intentional slang. Quoque, Latine "viri" non "viruses" sed "men" est.
As a loaned phrase, "hoi polloi" is an indivisible unit of meaning in English, and it is perfectly acceptable (albeit counterintuitive) to use an English article with it.
With a DeBeers diamond, an African child may well have died a result of its production. That's the human touch, and that's why people should be more impressed by a genuine natural diamond.
It is already known there that are enough stray particles in space that a craft moving at relativistic speeds would need a good deal of shielding against them. Somewhat counterintuitively, deep space has a higher density of particles than inside the solar system, since the pressure of the solar wind actually keeps particles from deep space at bay.
But banning racist speech is not a slippery slope, you're right. It enshrines the principle that offensive speech which society does not approve of can be censored. There is no slippery slope, there is only a cliff, and Germany has jumped off blindly hoping that they'll land in water instead of on rocks. It isn't a matter of outright tyranny, but today's "there was violence over racism" can easily be tomorrow's "there was violence over dissent." The U.S. imprisoned people merely for being anarchists in the past without being a police state.
Because the editors (not just the admins) are people who actually contribute to it. But the reason for this policy is so that a person can't just create 50 new sockpuppet accounts and have them all vote.
Yes, a "higher" percentage of youth than adults are intellectually and emotionally incapable of handling sex. But, again, a "higher" percentage of blacks than whites are criminals. Why is it justifiable to pass laws restricting all youths on such logic, but not similar laws restricting all blacks? They are one and the same, and I do not accept that either is morally defensible.
The idea of an "age of majority" strikes me precisely the same as the idea of a "maximum permissable fraction of Colored blood" would strike you. It's ludicrous. People are individuals and should be judged as such, and restricting all young people because a greater percentage of young people are (immature, unintelligent, whatever) is no different from restricting all black people because a greater percentage of back people are (uneducated, criminal, violent, speak in Ebonics, whatever). So far, the "best" counterargument I've heard to my stance is "well, you grow out of childhood, but you don't grow out of your race". It speaks volumes that this is the most logical counterargument anyone can seem to muster.
We were all kids once. To me, an intelligent and capable adult who doesn't care about the rights of intelligent and capable youths is somewhat akin to an African-American who doesn't care about slavery or starvation or HIV in Africa. We all came out of that oppression, and it is up to us to fight it.
Your assertion that sex between a youth and an adult necessarily constitutes "abuse" is ridiculous (but typical). I would not be surprised if, 100 years ago, sex between a black and a white was similarly considered "abuse" (possibly to both parties involved).
I believe there's a term for this used in law. It goes: res ipsa loquitur.
You do have a pretty low uid. Maybe you aren't a troll. Maybe you really are sincerely just an unbelievably naive moron. It is certainly possible to debate whether or not children should be afforded the same rights as adults, but by "debate" I mean "argue rationally" and not "spew shit out of one's mouth," so I doubt anyone could debate anything with you.
And lest anyone should think that I'm a troll, check my quotes yourself: Caspian really said them all.
I think it's the most hilarious thing I've heard in ages. And so, I suppose, must the millions of other people who listen.
You know, I could say that I wish you had had sex with a 25-year-old when you were 12 just so you could see how fucked up you would be now, but I don't. I'm actually a compassionate human being. Guess what? Being smart for your age (not just thinking you are, but actually genuinely being incredibly smart for your age) doesn't make sex with someone that older any less abusive, even when one is a willing participant and "knows what they're doing."
People can look for Dick porn, too.