Correct. Neither is the GATB.
RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen
--
"SATAN, SATAN! It's the main megafurnace! She's losin' power and the temperature is dropping fast! I'm not sure if I can hold her!" -- Scotty in Hell
I haven't watched TV for years; how is this an issue? [Queue up obligatory TV snob link...]
Nah; you're not a snob; you're just stupid. Because you're stupid, I'll answer the question. See if you can get a grown-up to explain it to you.
It's an issue because many people watch television, for many reasons. Those people are talking about it in this thread. The fact that you can't afford television, or don't watch it for some other reason, is possibly interesting to you, but not particularly germane to the subject. No doubt there are a number of people across the world who do not watch TV, many of them for perhaps the same reason as you. Their declarations would of course also be meaningless -- but they weren't stupid enough to fail to realize it. In this thread, making such a statement is not meaningful to the topic.
It is in fact, demonstrably a failure, just as telling everyone you touched yourself inappropriately this morning. While it might be interesting to you, it's not related to the topic.
Hope this helps.
Dave Kelsen
--
"I'm sure we all agree that we ought to love one another and I know there are people in the world that do not love their fellow human beings and I hate people like that." -- Tom Lehrer
I have to say that you are consistent. Never close to right or accurate, but consistent, and if I wasn't fairly sure that it's tongue-in-cheek, I'd say you are distinctly exuding a sense of superiority, as if you actually believe what you are typing. Kudos.
Dave Kelsen
--
Some nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men.
I love how Slashdot picks on one news channel so they can ignore all the other ones lying to us.
I don't see the logic of your statement.
People (including those on Slashdot) pick on this particular 'news' channel because it is the most egregious, obvious, insanely foolish of the bunch, not because they want to pretend the other news sources are not lying, or ignore the lying that goes on.
When he was on, Olbermann was the worst of the bunch, on the other side. And fairly popular. But he never reached the level of ignorance fundamentally possessed, used and propagated by those on the Fox News channel. If you think they are or were truly comparable, you came in to the situation with some predispositions you need to examine.
Dave Kelsen
--
Self-deprecation is an art form that I'm far too ugly to be any good at.
I don't necessarily agree - or disagree - with the idea here. But suppose we start from another well-known and widely accepted definition of stealing: taking something that isn't yours, that you didn't earn, that you have no rights to.
The idea that copying is not theft focuses on the fact that nothing is effectively removed from the owner, and that's true. I think that it is more worthwhile and meaningful to focus on what it is, and means, to me.
Maybe that's just me, though.
Dave Kelsen
--
"The happiness of your life depends upon the quality of your thoughts: therefore, guard accordingly, and take care that you entertain no notions unsuitable to virtue and reasonable nature." ~ Marcus Aurelius
I don't think the previous fellow was trying to tell you what you think, but I can state unequivocally that I am not. I am telling you that you are using the term 'atheist' incorrectly, irrespective of the literal English translation of the original Latin word segments..
A person who does not have a belief in a religious deity is an agnostic, one who says, "I don't know."
An atheist is a person who states, "I know. There is no god." These terms are often commingled, but their meaning is generally clear, although obviously not to you.
You decide what you think, and if you feel strongly about it, tell us. But you don't get to re-define the common and accepted meanings of terms when you do so. If you claim to be an atheist but describe yourself as an agnostic, it is, whether deliberate or not, misleading.
Dave Kelsen
--
Mediocrity requires aloofness to preserve it's dignity.
I disagree. We have another word for that; people who simply don't believe one way or the other - who don't have a belief - are called agnostics. You are saying that agnosicism is atheism. Atheism states, "there is no god." Agnosticism says, "I don't know if there is a or any gods."
These are not the same. Atheism is a statement of belief about a religious matter.
Dave Kelsen
--
The "bishop" came to my church yesterday.. that guy was an imposter, he never once moved diagonally.
You fail to comprehend the difference between belief and religion. A statement of belief about a deity, presented as fact, is religion. That of course doesn't mean that it isn't stupid.
I have no such faith, and am not defending the notion. I am simply pointing out that because of the subject matter, these kind of statements are indeed religion. Stated the way you have couched your statements above, i.e. "I am pretty sure," "probably right," etc., it is another matter.
This is not simply another unknown; it is on the minds of many humans, as it deals with two questions we do not have answers for - where did we come from, and what happens after we die.
Science can not yet adequately explain the first; whatever caused the big bang, the origin of what matter went 'bang', etc. Nothing can explain the second. I have my own set of beliefs, pretty much like yours, with respect to this. But to make a statement concerning the existence of 'god' is religion, purely.
Dave Kelsen
--
"I'm sure we all agree that we ought to love one another and I know there are people in the world that do not love their fellow human beings and I hate people like that." -- Tom Lehrer
Why is it so hard? I have never considered it, in reading. My wife is the author of a series of fantasy books (http://www.amazon.com/Demon-Hunting-Dixie-Lexi-George/dp/0758263090) and I find them entertaining and well-written. I have read Tolkien since I was introduced to it in 8th grade, 1971, and I find all of it entertaining and well-written. The gender makeup of the cast is not relevant to me, and I suspect it is not relevant to most authors.
As for the Avengers, Whedon didn't create any of those characters, although I presume he made choices about who would be featured, and how much.
No one is saying that even-handed treatment of characters with respect to gender is wrong, or ruins stories. I am saying that the lack thereof is also not wrong, and doesn't ruin stories.
Dave Kelsen
--
Did you know that if you put your ear up to a stranger's leg you can hear them say: What the fuck are you doing?
I signed up for this; I'm an old-time programmer whose formal education has not included much about the internet.
I just wanted to point out that the fourth word in the terms of service, 'participate', is misspelled.
In what way is it not a true indicator of a user's preference?
It has to be either on or off by default. Your statement means that whichever way it is set, it doesn't indicate the user's preference, so it can not ever indicate the user's preference.
Bush was able to get things done, because he was able to get people 'across the aisle' to work with him, to a limited degree.
Obama was not, and was excoriated in the press and elsewhere for his fruitless attempts at bipartisanship during his first 2 1/2 years of presidency. What Mitch McConnell said (roughly, 'our goal for the next two years is to ensure that Obama is a one-term president') wasn't just rhetoric, it was operative policy.
RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen
--
"The happiness of your life depends upon the quality of your thoughts: therefore, guard accordingly, and take care that you entertain no notions unsuitable to virtue and reasonable nature." ~ Marcus Aurelius
There are a number of Republicans who are naturally sympathetic to Democrat legislation, being from pretty liberal states. Pulling in a few of those votes would have easily overcome filibusters. Needless to say, it didn't happen for a lot of crucial legislation.
It is my opinion that any Republicans who might have been willing to think, rejecting the edicts from above in their party, were threatened with removal. If that didn't work, they were removed; the last is/was Olympia Snowe.
I don't see how either party will get much done from here on out, without a filibuster-proof majority. I agree with this, said by President Clinton: "Democracy does not have to be a bloodsport. It can be an honorable enterprise that advances the public interest." But I don't hold out much hope that it will ever, at least ever again, work that way.
RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen
--
I don't always make new friends, but when I do, I like to make them using parts from old ones.
Let's ask the author of the constitution (quoting from memory): "There is nothing more natural than to start with a general phrase, and qualify it with particulars. The phrase 'provide general welfare' is qualified by the list of specifically enumerated power below it. Congress may only exercise those powers.
"To suppose Congress might do anything that falls within the 'general welfare' would give the central government unlimited power to do whatever it pleases, and there is a whole host of proofs that was never intended by the original framers, nor by myself." - James Madison, author of the Constitution.
He also authored, with Jefferson, the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions which state the powers of the central government are few, while the bulk of the power is reserved to the People and their Legislatures (amendment 10). The Congress may not mandate you buy car insurance. But the States can. It is a power reserved to them, and the same is true of any other form of insurance.
And finally:
Congress has the power to regulate commerce AMONG the states. Not inside the states, and most-definitely not commerce between two individuals (me and my doctor). They can NOT force me to buy insurance if I would rather pay cash directly to my physician.
"Amazingly, the examples of individual mandates passed by the founders are so directly applicable that the claim that original intent precludes affirming the heath care act should become almost laughable:
In 1790, a Congress including 20 Founders passed a law requiring that ship owners buy medical insurance for their seamen. Washington signed it into law.
In 1792, another law signed by Washington required that all able-bodied men buy a firearm. (So much for the argument that Congress cannot force us to participate in commerce.)
And in 1798, a Congress with five framers passed a law requiring that all seamen buy hospital insurance for themselves. Adams signed this legislation."
"Civil service laws override at-will.
If your state has no civil service laws protecting free speech, your state is de-facto 3rd world and sucks totally.
What state was this, Alabama or something?"
If your illiterate drunken ass bothered to learn anything about any of the states, or the United States, you would know not to make assumptions, and certainly not to cast aspersions based on your false assumptions.
I suppose that would be asking too much of any Aussie; clearly your penchant for drunkeness overrides any inclination you might have toward gathering actual information.
So in your own colorful idiom, perhaps you'll understand the meaning of these simply words: Fuck you. Mate.
"Most "licensed" motorists in USA/Canada know less about traffic laws than unlicensed citizens. Most motorists know less about traffic laws, or even how to drive a car, than cyclists. I say "licensed" because currently licensed individuals in the USA/Canada would never be able to get a license if they had to go through a proper licensing process such as the Norwegian or German system's."
Interesting. You say 'never' as if you were not mentally impaired.
Yes, you stupid fuck. It is also correct to say that they have the most non-reversed rulings. Because the percentage is the number that has meaning.
One case, reversed, is 100% reversal if it's the only case ever heard. One case, reversed, is.01% reversal if it's the only one reversed out of 10,000. How many matters as a percent.
You have obviously failed to grasp rudimentary math, not to mention English.
I think this is disingenuous. Blizzard already provided the game experience they want to provide, as well as the game experience the customer wants in a single-player game. I have always had a connection, but always preferred to play D2 in single-player mode. I don't really mind this personally, but it is a slap in the face of the people who do mind it for valid reasons.
They had it both ways, and they deliberately fucked it up. That's different from providing it the way they want to.
Dave Kelsen -- Anyone who told you to be yourself couldn't have given you worse advice.
Entirely correct. The people who want something of value (and make no mistake, it is the 'value' that makes it stealing) for nothing are dishonest, in their lives and with themselves.
The fundamental premise of science is that the universe is understandable; there are many things not known, but none unknowable. That, of course, is a matter of faith.
But even that is not necessary. Just as the fact that humans eventually discerned that gravity is not universal did not change the meaning or usefulness of our previous understanding of gravity, coming across something deemed unknowable would not diminish the value of what we know. Neither would it satisfy everyone that something was in fact unknowable.
As for the future being like the past, a good example is the fact that we all (well, almost all, anyway) have faith that the world will keep spinning, i.e. the sun'll come up, tomorrow. Like the rest of your premise about science, the problem is that if or when we're wrong, nothing will matter. You cannot muddle through life for long thinking that the scientific method isn't valid because it is based on science; for as long as you do, you will be wasting air.
Grow up. Using terms such as 'science', 'demonstrated' and 'reasoning' implies that you understand their meaning.
Yes, they might - and often do. This altered behavior has been demonstrated and observed with people who have vanity tags. While not necessarily their name, drivers are aware that a unique identifier associated only with them is on display.
It can and does cause drivers to drive differently.
RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen
--
Children, your performance was miserable. Your parents will all receive phone calls instructing them to love you less.
Slashdot Mirror
Correct. Neither is the GATB. RFT!!! Dave Kelsen -- "SATAN, SATAN! It's the main megafurnace! She's losin' power and the temperature is dropping fast! I'm not sure if I can hold her!" -- Scotty in Hell
I haven't watched TV for years; how is this an issue? [Queue up obligatory TV snob link...]
Nah; you're not a snob; you're just stupid. Because you're stupid, I'll answer the question. See if you can get a grown-up to explain it to you.
It's an issue because many people watch television, for many reasons. Those people are talking about it in this thread. The fact that you can't afford television, or don't watch it for some other reason, is possibly interesting to you, but not particularly germane to the subject. No doubt there are a number of people across the world who do not watch TV, many of them for perhaps the same reason as you. Their declarations would of course also be meaningless -- but they weren't stupid enough to fail to realize it. In this thread, making such a statement is not meaningful to the topic.
It is in fact, demonstrably a failure, just as telling everyone you touched yourself inappropriately this morning. While it might be interesting to you, it's not related to the topic.
Hope this helps.
Dave Kelsen
--
"I'm sure we all agree that we ought to love one another and I know there are people in the world that do not love their fellow human beings and I hate people like that." -- Tom Lehrer
I have to say that you are consistent. Never close to right or accurate, but consistent, and if I wasn't fairly sure that it's tongue-in-cheek, I'd say you are distinctly exuding a sense of superiority, as if you actually believe what you are typing. Kudos.
Dave Kelsen
--
Some nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men.
I love how Slashdot picks on one news channel so they can ignore all the other ones lying to us.
I don't see the logic of your statement.
People (including those on Slashdot) pick on this particular 'news' channel because it is the most egregious, obvious, insanely foolish of the bunch, not because they want to pretend the other news sources are not lying, or ignore the lying that goes on. When he was on, Olbermann was the worst of the bunch, on the other side. And fairly popular. But he never reached the level of ignorance fundamentally possessed, used and propagated by those on the Fox News channel. If you think they are or were truly comparable, you came in to the situation with some predispositions you need to examine.
Dave Kelsen
--
Self-deprecation is an art form that I'm far too ugly to be any good at.
I don't necessarily agree - or disagree - with the idea here. But suppose we start from another well-known and widely accepted definition of stealing: taking something that isn't yours, that you didn't earn, that you have no rights to.
The idea that copying is not theft focuses on the fact that nothing is effectively removed from the owner, and that's true. I think that it is more worthwhile and meaningful to focus on what it is, and means, to me.
Maybe that's just me, though.
Dave Kelsen
--
"The happiness of your life depends upon the quality of your thoughts: therefore, guard accordingly, and take care that you entertain no notions unsuitable to virtue and reasonable nature." ~ Marcus Aurelius
I don't think the previous fellow was trying to tell you what you think, but I can state unequivocally that I am not. I am telling you that you are using the term 'atheist' incorrectly, irrespective of the literal English translation of the original Latin word segments..
A person who does not have a belief in a religious deity is an agnostic, one who says, "I don't know."
An atheist is a person who states, "I know. There is no god." These terms are often commingled, but their meaning is generally clear, although obviously not to you.
You decide what you think, and if you feel strongly about it, tell us. But you don't get to re-define the common and accepted meanings of terms when you do so. If you claim to be an atheist but describe yourself as an agnostic, it is, whether deliberate or not, misleading.
Dave Kelsen
--
Mediocrity requires aloofness to preserve it's dignity.
I disagree. We have another word for that; people who simply don't believe one way or the other - who don't have a belief - are called agnostics. You are saying that agnosicism is atheism. Atheism states, "there is no god." Agnosticism says, "I don't know if there is a or any gods."
These are not the same. Atheism is a statement of belief about a religious matter.
Dave Kelsen
--
The "bishop" came to my church yesterday.. that guy was an imposter, he never once moved diagonally.
You fail to comprehend the difference between belief and religion. A statement of belief about a deity, presented as fact, is religion. That of course doesn't mean that it isn't stupid.
I have no such faith, and am not defending the notion. I am simply pointing out that because of the subject matter, these kind of statements are indeed religion. Stated the way you have couched your statements above, i.e. "I am pretty sure," "probably right," etc., it is another matter.
This is not simply another unknown; it is on the minds of many humans, as it deals with two questions we do not have answers for - where did we come from, and what happens after we die.
Science can not yet adequately explain the first; whatever caused the big bang, the origin of what matter went 'bang', etc. Nothing can explain the second. I have my own set of beliefs, pretty much like yours, with respect to this. But to make a statement concerning the existence of 'god' is religion, purely.
Dave Kelsen
--
"I'm sure we all agree that we ought to love one another and I know there are people in the world that do not love their fellow human beings and I hate people like that." -- Tom Lehrer
Atheism is certainly a statement of unprovable belief about the existence of a deity, touted as a fact.
That's religion, kid.
Dave Kelsen
--
One of my biggest fears in this election is that the outcome will create a world in which Glenn Beck is happy.
Why is it so hard? I have never considered it, in reading. My wife is the author of a series of fantasy books (http://www.amazon.com/Demon-Hunting-Dixie-Lexi-George/dp/0758263090) and I find them entertaining and well-written. I have read Tolkien since I was introduced to it in 8th grade, 1971, and I find all of it entertaining and well-written. The gender makeup of the cast is not relevant to me, and I suspect it is not relevant to most authors.
As for the Avengers, Whedon didn't create any of those characters, although I presume he made choices about who would be featured, and how much.
No one is saying that even-handed treatment of characters with respect to gender is wrong, or ruins stories. I am saying that the lack thereof is also not wrong, and doesn't ruin stories.
Dave Kelsen
--
Did you know that if you put your ear up to a stranger's leg you can hear them say: What the fuck are you doing?
Goblins are Orcs.
I signed up for this; I'm an old-time programmer whose formal education has not included much about the internet. I just wanted to point out that the fourth word in the terms of service, 'participate', is misspelled.
In what way is it not a true indicator of a user's preference?
It has to be either on or off by default. Your statement means that whichever way it is set, it doesn't indicate the user's preference, so it can not ever indicate the user's preference.
Something seems.... wrong about that notion.
I think you're making the opposite point.
Bush was able to get things done, because he was able to get people 'across the aisle' to work with him, to a limited degree.
Obama was not, and was excoriated in the press and elsewhere for his fruitless attempts at bipartisanship during his first 2 1/2 years of presidency. What Mitch McConnell said (roughly, 'our goal for the next two years is to ensure that Obama is a one-term president') wasn't just rhetoric, it was operative policy.
RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen
--
"The happiness of your life depends upon the quality of your thoughts: therefore, guard accordingly, and take care that you entertain no notions unsuitable to virtue and reasonable nature." ~ Marcus Aurelius
There are a number of Republicans who are naturally sympathetic to Democrat legislation, being from pretty liberal states. Pulling in a few of those votes would have easily overcome filibusters. Needless to say, it didn't happen for a lot of crucial legislation.
It is my opinion that any Republicans who might have been willing to think, rejecting the edicts from above in their party, were threatened with removal. If that didn't work, they were removed; the last is/was Olympia Snowe.
I don't see how either party will get much done from here on out, without a filibuster-proof majority. I agree with this, said by President Clinton: "Democracy does not have to be a bloodsport. It can be an honorable enterprise that advances the public interest." But I don't hold out much hope that it will ever, at least ever again, work that way.
RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen
--
I don't always make new friends, but when I do, I like to make them using parts from old ones.
Robert Heinlein wrote many books for young science fiction readers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinlein_juveniles
Let's ask the author of the constitution (quoting from memory): "There is nothing more natural than to start with a general phrase, and qualify it with particulars. The phrase 'provide general welfare' is qualified by the list of specifically enumerated power below it. Congress may only exercise those powers. "To suppose Congress might do anything that falls within the 'general welfare' would give the central government unlimited power to do whatever it pleases, and there is a whole host of proofs that was never intended by the original framers, nor by myself." - James Madison, author of the Constitution. He also authored, with Jefferson, the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions which state the powers of the central government are few, while the bulk of the power is reserved to the People and their Legislatures (amendment 10). The Congress may not mandate you buy car insurance. But the States can. It is a power reserved to them, and the same is true of any other form of insurance. And finally: Congress has the power to regulate commerce AMONG the states. Not inside the states, and most-definitely not commerce between two individuals (me and my doctor). They can NOT force me to buy insurance if I would rather pay cash directly to my physician.
"Amazingly, the examples of individual mandates passed by the founders are so directly applicable that the claim that original intent precludes affirming the heath care act should become almost laughable:
In 1790, a Congress including 20 Founders passed a law requiring that ship owners buy medical insurance for their seamen. Washington signed it into law.
In 1792, another law signed by Washington required that all able-bodied men buy a firearm. (So much for the argument that Congress cannot force us to participate in commerce.)
And in 1798, a Congress with five framers passed a law requiring that all seamen buy hospital insurance for themselves. Adams signed this legislation."
From an article in Slate in April of this year.
"Civil service laws override at-will. If your state has no civil service laws protecting free speech, your state is de-facto 3rd world and sucks totally. What state was this, Alabama or something?"
If your illiterate drunken ass bothered to learn anything about any of the states, or the United States, you would know not to make assumptions, and certainly not to cast aspersions based on your false assumptions.
I suppose that would be asking too much of any Aussie; clearly your penchant for drunkeness overrides any inclination you might have toward gathering actual information.
So in your own colorful idiom, perhaps you'll understand the meaning of these simply words: Fuck you. Mate.
"Most "licensed" motorists in USA/Canada know less about traffic laws than unlicensed citizens. Most motorists know less about traffic laws, or even how to drive a car, than cyclists. I say "licensed" because currently licensed individuals in the USA/Canada would never be able to get a license if they had to go through a proper licensing process such as the Norwegian or German system's."
Interesting. You say 'never' as if you were not mentally impaired.
I'd say someone who was omniscient could probably say...
Dave Kelsen
Yes, you stupid fuck. It is also correct to say that they have the most non-reversed rulings. Because the percentage is the number that has meaning.
.01% reversal if it's the only one reversed out of 10,000. How many matters as a percent.
One case, reversed, is 100% reversal if it's the only case ever heard. One case, reversed, is
You have obviously failed to grasp rudimentary math, not to mention English.
I think this is disingenuous. Blizzard already provided the game experience they want to provide, as well as the game experience the customer wants in a single-player game. I have always had a connection, but always preferred to play D2 in single-player mode. I don't really mind this personally, but it is a slap in the face of the people who do mind it for valid reasons.
They had it both ways, and they deliberately fucked it up. That's different from providing it the way they want to.
Dave Kelsen
--
Anyone who told you to be yourself couldn't have given you worse advice.
Entirely correct. The people who want something of value (and make no mistake, it is the 'value' that makes it stealing) for nothing are dishonest, in their lives and with themselves.
What a load of mystical bullshit.
The fundamental premise of science is that the universe is understandable; there are many things not known, but none unknowable. That, of course, is a matter of faith.
But even that is not necessary. Just as the fact that humans eventually discerned that gravity is not universal did not change the meaning or usefulness of our previous understanding of gravity, coming across something deemed unknowable would not diminish the value of what we know. Neither would it satisfy everyone that something was in fact unknowable.
As for the future being like the past, a good example is the fact that we all (well, almost all, anyway) have faith that the world will keep spinning, i.e. the sun'll come up, tomorrow. Like the rest of your premise about science, the problem is that if or when we're wrong, nothing will matter. You cannot muddle through life for long thinking that the scientific method isn't valid because it is based on science; for as long as you do, you will be wasting air.
Grow up. Using terms such as 'science', 'demonstrated' and 'reasoning' implies that you understand their meaning.
Yes, they might - and often do. This altered behavior has been demonstrated and observed with people who have vanity tags. While not necessarily their name, drivers are aware that a unique identifier associated only with them is on display.
It can and does cause drivers to drive differently.
RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen
--
Children, your performance was miserable. Your parents will all receive phone calls instructing them to love you less.