You're a little self-contradictory there, I think. You write as if arranged marriage is immoral right after claiming that morals are relative.
If morals were relative than I could only assert that is wrong for ME to murder, but you get to make your own decision whether it is moral for you to murder.
The whole "morals are relative" thing is one of the most illogical, stupid, persistent arguments used to justify behavior that is known to be immoral.
"That doesn't sound like an "opinated internet user", does it?"
You're right. It doesn't. However, on the internet, it is virtually impossible to for a layperson to tell the difference between the a crackpot with slipshod experimental procedures, the maliciouis liar, and someone that actually really did a good experiment that actually did test the validity of the reported findings.
"PhD candidate is going to see a poorly written article and mix some dangerous chemicals together? Seems a bit far fetched to me."
Perhaps that is far-fetched. More likely, and even already a serious problem, is people using very shoddy social research to justify bad politics and legislation.
But, by sharing knowledge you might be losing something more important than the knowledge. For example, if Coca-Cola were to share their secret formula they would not lose any knowledge, but they would lose a whole bunch of money.
I haven't ever had to pay per book (except for late fees) or per visit, or per library card at a public library. This doesn't mean that the library is free. I am not charged based on my library usage, but on the value of my home (or other real property). It's easily worth it.
As far as my account balance and deposits are concerned the bank is welcome to substitute nines or any other non-zero digit whenever they run out of zeros.
For withdrawals, I prefer zeros. Non-zeros may not be substituted for zeros, but zeros may be used in place of non-zero deposit numbers.
very slippery when wet expensive to maintain (probably few/none of the individual bricks are 150 years old) sometimes makes property more valuable, thus paying for itself in higher taxes at the same tax rate
When I lived in Salt Lake City area the pavement noise was not from the grooving. The concrete had worn enough that there were ruts in it where the agregate (rocks in the concrete) was showing. The agregate wore more slowly than its surropundings, resulting in driving over a surface that was probably like the PFY's face. (think bumps like a basketball surface)
Some roads are paved with asphalt (tarmac, macadam, blacktop) which basically tar mixed with gravel. Other roads are paved with concrete. Asphalt has advantages of smoothness, less cracking, less expense, cheaply recyclable, quicker to build the road. Concrete has the advantages that it wears much more slowly (requiring high-traffic roads to be repaved much less often) and provides structural strength when building bridges, etc. There are probably other advantages and disadvantages that I don't know about, and there are other paving methods too (so no one feels left out because of their bricks/cobbles/dirt/gravel/etc.)
Pretty much any textile handles repeated freezing/thawing cycles just fine. The ice-cube trays in my freezer haven't cracked yet, either. It is the inflexibility of the material that causes it to crack when the shape is changed.
It might be a marketing gimmick, but it's not JUST a marketing gimmick. It is very amusing, in a much more intelligent way than most marketing gimmicks.
Then again, maybe they're not paid, but paying for the advertisement. People will spend $5 more on a t-shirt for the privilege of advertising some cartoon, or $20 more for advertising for some sports team. So, what is so hard to believe about people spontaneously creating an article like this when they're probably slobberingly impatient for the next movie to come out.
I believe that George Lucas still knows what makes a movie good, and could still make a really good movie if he actually tried to. It seems, however, that he isn't nearly as directly involved with making the movies as he was when they were very good.
I'm expect that he is no longer as interested in making a good movie as he once was. He is probably more interested in using the income from movies to fund other projects.
Why not? Some golf courses are extremely cheap. Some people may be able to afford one or the other, but not both. If your friend works at the course you might be able to play for free.
Plus, there are plenty of people that can't afford either green fees or any contact lenses.
It isn't what a site agreement says that loses you the ownership of your words, it's what the site agreement says when you click your agreement.
I can say that I'll never give up ownership of my land. However, once I consent to an agreement (probably drawn up by someone else) that says that I don't own the land anymore it doesn't matter if I say that I'll never give it up.
One thing that people forget about dotations (and other gifts) is that once the time/money/car/whatever is donated IT IS NO LONGER YOURS and you have no say in what happens to it. That is what donated means.
If you give me a tie for Christmas, and I never wear it, that is my right. If you donate code to my projest (as opposed to lisencing it to me) then I can use it, not use it, sell it, whatever, 'cause it's mine.
On the flip side, if you want donations you have to use the donations that you get in ways that will attract the donations that you want.
Contact lenses are like gloves to give you a better grip, or baseball cap to keep the sun out of your eyes, or shoes with cleats to get a better grip in the dirt and grass. When you're done, you take off the contacts and have no after effects at all.
Not everyone an afford them, since they'll be about the same price as regular contact lenses and not everyone can afford them. (That's what I get for reading.)
The theory of socialism may be about "equality, and about pooling resources."
The reality of socialism is much more like the following true story:
The social worker tried to get my wife to use several services that we didn't need. My wife protested that we didn't need them. The social worker explained that the services were free. My wife again explained that we didn't need them, and didn't want to waste taxpayer money. The social worker said, "This doesn't cost taxpayers money. It's federally funded."
Slashdot Mirror
Or, perhaps you'd rather not know your security issues. W'll discuss them where you can't participate and save you the headache.
Clothing and toy manufacturers have managed to get their customers to be brand concious by age 2.
(Thanks Barney, Elmo)
You're a little self-contradictory there, I think.
You write as if arranged marriage is immoral right after claiming that morals are relative.
If morals were relative than I could only assert that is wrong for ME to murder, but you get to make your own decision whether it is moral for you to murder.
The whole "morals are relative" thing is one of the most illogical, stupid, persistent arguments used to justify behavior that is known to be immoral.
"That doesn't sound like an "opinated internet user", does it?"
You're right. It doesn't.
However, on the internet, it is virtually impossible to for a layperson to tell the difference between the a crackpot with slipshod experimental procedures, the maliciouis liar, and someone that actually really did a good experiment that actually did test the validity of the reported findings.
"PhD candidate is going to see a poorly written article and mix some dangerous chemicals together? Seems a bit far fetched to me."
Perhaps that is far-fetched.
More likely, and even already a serious problem, is people using very shoddy social research to justify bad politics and legislation.
"By sharing knowledge, you do not loose it."
But, by sharing knowledge you might be losing something more important than the knowledge.
For example, if Coca-Cola were to share their secret formula they would not lose any knowledge, but they would lose a whole bunch of money.
"Next we should perhaps question why our governments have such strict controls placed on essentially very boring information."
That's easy.
If we get bored and fall asleep, we aren't watching ads on the TV and buying stuff to keep the economy going.
I haven't ever had to pay per book (except for late fees) or per visit, or per library card at a public library.
This doesn't mean that the library is free.
I am not charged based on my library usage, but on the value of my home (or other real property).
It's easily worth it.
As far as my account balance and deposits are concerned the bank is welcome to substitute nines or any other non-zero digit whenever they run out of zeros.
For withdrawals, I prefer zeros. Non-zeros may not be substituted for zeros, but zeros may be used in place of non-zero deposit numbers.
"budding scientists should not determine the nature of the explanation before conducting the science."
IMO:
Anyone that determines the nature of the explanation before conducting the science is, by definition, not a scientist, budding or otherwise.
very slippery when wet
expensive to maintain (probably few/none of the individual bricks are 150 years old)
sometimes makes property more valuable, thus paying for itself in higher taxes at the same tax rate
When I lived in Salt Lake City area the pavement noise was not from the grooving.
The concrete had worn enough that there were ruts in it where the agregate (rocks in the concrete) was showing. The agregate wore more slowly than its surropundings, resulting in driving over a surface that was probably like the PFY's face. (think bumps like a basketball surface)
Some roads are paved with asphalt (tarmac, macadam, blacktop) which basically tar mixed with gravel.
Other roads are paved with concrete.
Asphalt has advantages of smoothness, less cracking, less expense, cheaply recyclable, quicker to build the road.
Concrete has the advantages that it wears much more slowly (requiring high-traffic roads to be repaved much less often) and provides structural strength when building bridges, etc.
There are probably other advantages and disadvantages that I don't know about, and there are other paving methods too (so no one feels left out because of their bricks/cobbles/dirt/gravel/etc.)
Helmet
n, 1. tinfoil hat augumented to protect against more things than mind-control rays
Pretty much any textile handles repeated freezing/thawing cycles just fine.
The ice-cube trays in my freezer haven't cracked yet, either.
It is the inflexibility of the material that causes it to crack when the shape is changed.
Bad idea.
Some doorknob of a kender would steal it.
It might be a marketing gimmick, but it's not JUST a marketing gimmick. It is very amusing, in a much more intelligent way than most marketing gimmicks.
Then again, maybe they're not paid, but paying for the advertisement.
People will spend $5 more on a t-shirt for the privilege of advertising some cartoon, or $20 more for advertising for some sports team. So, what is so hard to believe about people spontaneously creating an article like this when they're probably slobberingly impatient for the next movie to come out.
IMO:
I believe that George Lucas still knows what makes a movie good, and could still make a really good movie if he actually tried to. It seems, however, that he isn't nearly as directly involved with making the movies as he was when they were very good.
I'm expect that he is no longer as interested in making a good movie as he once was. He is probably more interested in using the income from movies to fund other projects.
His choice. His right. Our loss.
Why not?
Some golf courses are extremely cheap.
Some people may be able to afford one or the other, but not both.
If your friend works at the course you might be able to play for free.
Plus, there are plenty of people that can't afford either green fees or any contact lenses.
It isn't what a site agreement says that loses you the ownership of your words, it's what the site agreement says when you click your agreement.
I can say that I'll never give up ownership of my land. However, once I consent to an agreement (probably drawn up by someone else) that says that I don't own the land anymore it doesn't matter if I say that I'll never give it up.
pickled pork livers
One thing that people forget about dotations (and other gifts) is that once the time/money/car/whatever is donated IT IS NO LONGER YOURS and you have no say in what happens to it. That is what donated means.
If you give me a tie for Christmas, and I never wear it, that is my right. If you donate code to my projest (as opposed to lisencing it to me) then I can use it, not use it, sell it, whatever, 'cause it's mine.
On the flip side, if you want donations you have to use the donations that you get in ways that will attract the donations that you want.
Steroids, etc. are permanent and dangerous.
Contact lenses are like gloves to give you a better grip, or baseball cap to keep the sun out of your eyes, or shoes with cleats to get a better grip in the dirt and grass. When you're done, you take off the contacts and have no after effects at all.
Not everyone an afford them, since they'll be about the same price as regular contact lenses and not everyone can afford them. (That's what I get for reading.)
The theory of socialism may be about "equality, and about pooling resources."
The reality of socialism is much more like the following true story:
The social worker tried to get my wife to use several services that we didn't need. My wife protested that we didn't need them. The social worker explained that the services were free. My wife again explained that we didn't need them, and didn't want to waste taxpayer money. The social worker said, "This doesn't cost taxpayers money. It's federally funded."