Untrue. Manners can be a way to express common decency, but there's nothing to stop a bright and manipulative asshole using them.
> t's actually worse here because people seem to become more and more rude in real-life with every passing second.. and the (falsely) perceived anonymity of "hiding behind" a social networking engine or a mobile phone tends to exacerbate the issue.
Also untrue. Vicious discussion on a social networking engine can wise you up to the rampant trollage and desensitise you to the things people say. It's possible to develop an immune system. It's different for different people.
> This lack of socialisation isolates kids from seeing the pain inflicted by their actions. If they don't see the pain caused, then they have no empathy for the "victim."
If they have no empathy, do they care about the pain, even when they perceive it? And what about sadism? Cats are sadistic - it's part of a cat's nature. Can't it also be part of human nature? After all, there's plenty of evidence to suggest that it might be. I think you harbour an implicit assumption that people have a better nature. I'd say *some* people, maybe most, have a better nature. And then again, every so often, you encounter a werewolf.
I second that bollocks. However, three or four of our bullies were built like Biffa Bacon, one of them used an air-pistol to bushwhack other kids on the way to the sweet shop, and they were the main culprits in a group of 15-20 people. Kids who showed obvious transgender behaviour were basically permenent toast. Geeks frequently got hassled. None of the big kids who *weren't* bullies got picked on.
This is a *basic* problem. In adult life, sociopaths end up running countries, religions, and/or large amoral corporations. I'm guessing but willing to bet that a significant percentage of school bullies are sociopaths. Until we can reliably diagnose this and correct the tendency, we will continue to have a problem. Half-assed attempts to monitor and censor the web in a supposed attempt to combat this are just equal epic fail.
L. Ron Hubbard may have been a drug-addicted schizophrenic, but I suspect that successive waves of newly authored myth will change and divide the original strain of Scientology. Give it 2000 years and some of its children might be as fluffy as the 'Death or Cake?' Church of England (Yay! delicious cake!).
And, there are older religions which are arguably as nasty. I'm not going to get into name-calling; it just doesn't seem worth the effort. It's saddening.
I don't think there are any genuine fundamental differences between the collective-mythos-inspired religions and Scientology. Some of them are a lot sweeter, possibly because they attract a sweeter and healthier crowd; not all, however. I'm not saying Scientology is a good thing - for the record, I think it sucks, and I have one or two ex-Scientologist friends so I don't say that out of ignorance. I respect the people behind Project Chanology.
I just think that the underlying process of subjugation is common to many religions; whether they're born in the cynical and sociopathic mind of a tyrannical demagogue, or arise from a collective inflowing of old myths.
All the operating system does is hide all accesses to the hardware behind device drivers interfaces, and steal valuable cpu time by wrapping it in concepts like 'tasks' and a GUI. Quiche eaters.
> However, women who aren't raped or some similar circumstance outside their control have the ability to avoid pregnancy even without abortion.
Uh, so there's a guaranteed 100% effective means of birth control? Besides not having sex at all?
And what about grey area rape? He pushed the issue; she lacked the will to walk away because she's lonely and fucked up? I could spout a hundred other scenarios that reflect on life.
So, black and white. Gotta love those minimalist reasoning skills. And, what about the *guy*?
> More than likely, they wouldn't be able to live inside the body anymore.
They would also evolve as an ecology surviving on the energy liberated by the paint. Any human-targetted bacteria would likely get eaten for material resources. The paintwork might look a bit filthy after a decade or two.
I wonder how titanium dioxide nanoparticles would behave in a human lung and in the absense of light?
I also wonder how sensitive membranes such as those in the eyes would react to the presence of such dust?
Side question: Is there a solar cell technology based on TiO2?
Well, a lot of people fresh out of local sex-change clinic *do* look like the women on the CHinese team. ANd then again, some of them you'd never pick up on. If you ever sleep with any of them it will make you as gh3y as Elton John. I'd like you to think about that.
I blame the tedious permanence of the self-righteous old fart culture. You people were exercising your rights to display randomised senile expression fail, spitting on your audience and waving a cane around at da yoof, since at least Roman times.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you'd have to take a *long* road trip to find it.
That doesn't stop it being incredibly useful (and incredibly dangerous). And, if you can place your antimatter plants nearer the *Sun*...
Or, better, use NFS.
Exeriments on neural nets suggest that a trained net may generate 'ideas' based in its training if the 'neurons' are deliberately somewhat noisy.
Some drugs make some people more creative. Weed has that effect on me... is it just ramping up the background neural noise level?
My brother, who is Mister Focus with respect to my Miss Random, gets little or no effect from weed. Quote: 'It gives me a slight buzz; that's all'.
Anyone ever done an MRI study on the effects of drugs?
> manners are what lead to common-decency.
Untrue. Manners can be a way to express common decency, but there's nothing to stop a bright and manipulative asshole using them.
> t's actually worse here because people seem to become more and more rude in real-life with every passing second.. and the (falsely) perceived anonymity of "hiding behind" a social networking engine or a mobile phone tends to exacerbate the issue.
Also untrue. Vicious discussion on a social networking engine can wise you up to the rampant trollage and desensitise you to the things people say. It's possible to develop an immune system. It's different for different people.
> This lack of socialisation isolates kids from seeing the pain inflicted by their actions. If they don't see the pain caused, then they have no empathy for the "victim."
If they have no empathy, do they care about the pain, even when they perceive it? And what about sadism? Cats are sadistic - it's part of a cat's nature. Can't it also be part of human nature? After all, there's plenty of evidence to suggest that it might be. I think you harbour an implicit assumption that people have a better nature. I'd say *some* people, maybe most, have a better nature. And then again, every so often, you encounter a werewolf.
I second that bollocks. However, three or four of our bullies were built like Biffa Bacon, one of them used an air-pistol to bushwhack other kids on the way to the sweet shop, and they were the main culprits in a group of 15-20 people. Kids who showed obvious transgender behaviour were basically permenent toast. Geeks frequently got hassled. None of the big kids who *weren't* bullies got picked on.
This is a *basic* problem. In adult life, sociopaths end up running countries, religions, and/or large amoral corporations. I'm guessing but willing to bet that a significant percentage of school bullies are sociopaths. Until we can reliably diagnose this and correct the tendency, we will continue to have a problem. Half-assed attempts to monitor and censor the web in a supposed attempt to combat this are just equal epic fail.
L. Ron Hubbard may have been a drug-addicted schizophrenic, but I suspect that successive waves of newly authored myth will change and divide the original strain of Scientology. Give it 2000 years and some of its children might be as fluffy as the 'Death or Cake?' Church of England (Yay! delicious cake!).
And, there are older religions which are arguably as nasty. I'm not going to get into name-calling; it just doesn't seem worth the effort. It's saddening.
I don't think there are any genuine fundamental differences between the collective-mythos-inspired religions and Scientology. Some of them are a lot sweeter, possibly because they attract a sweeter and healthier crowd; not all, however. I'm not saying Scientology is a good thing - for the record, I think it sucks, and I have one or two ex-Scientologist friends so I don't say that out of ignorance. I respect the people behind Project Chanology.
I just think that the underlying process of subjugation is common to many religions; whether they're born in the cynical and sociopathic mind of a tyrannical demagogue, or arise from a collective inflowing of old myths.
So who invented the mainstream religions?
Now *that's* a bloody good idea.
These people are not liberals, you idiot.
I know what you mean, but screen is usable.
Online currency can be exchanged for real currency.
There's never been any particular shortage of well-educated idiots. Mentors aplenty!
I always found it an absolute pig to configure.
All the operating system does is hide all accesses to the hardware behind device drivers interfaces, and steal valuable cpu time by wrapping it in concepts like 'tasks' and a GUI. Quiche eaters.
Joke?
> However, women who aren't raped or some similar circumstance outside their control have the ability to avoid pregnancy even without abortion.
Uh, so there's a guaranteed 100% effective means of birth control? Besides not having sex at all?
And what about grey area rape? He pushed the issue; she lacked the will to walk away because she's lonely and fucked up? I could spout a hundred other scenarios that reflect on life.
So, black and white. Gotta love those minimalist reasoning skills. And, what about the *guy*?
I'm tempted to be very rude.
Recruitment consultant: 'We need three years experience of Delphi...'
Me: 'It came out last year...'
Recruitment consultant: 'But we need three years experience of Delphi...'
Crucifixion is too good for some people.
> More than likely, they wouldn't be able to live inside the body anymore.
They would also evolve as an ecology surviving on the energy liberated by the paint. Any human-targetted bacteria would likely get eaten for material resources. The paintwork might look a bit filthy after a decade or two.
I wonder how titanium dioxide nanoparticles would behave in a human lung and in the absense of light?
I also wonder how sensitive membranes such as those in the eyes would react to the presence of such dust?
Side question: Is there a solar cell technology based on TiO2?
Why the 'Permanent Energy Crisis'?
Junk journalism?
I'm already there.
Well, a lot of people fresh out of local sex-change clinic *do* look like the women on the CHinese team. ANd then again, some of them you'd never pick up on. If you ever sleep with any of them it will make you as gh3y as Elton John. I'd like you to think about that.
I blame the tedious permanence of the self-righteous old fart culture. You people were exercising your rights to display randomised senile expression fail, spitting on your audience and waving a cane around at da yoof, since at least Roman times.
1. Boring.
2. Fail.
3. So, I herd u leik mudkipz?
Of course there is.
I suspect that the point revolves around there being 12Mb of unknown functionality on your system. However, to the parent poster:
Welcome to the real world.