Maybe I need to work on my reading comprehension, but are you saying Ron Paul believes you don't own your body
Maybe you just need to pay a tiny bit of attention to the real world? Ron Paul has voted in favor of religious extremist positions with respect to women's rights. Sure he doesn't believe in big invasive government. Unless it's to support rabidly anti-American religious nutter positions.
Ron Paul is the only hope we have to cast off our corporate overlords.
This blind idiocy is exactly what is wrong with libertardarians.
Ron Paul is without competition the absolute worst we can do with respect to corporate power. That is the entire point of libertardarianism. Why do you think the Koch brothers were founding members?!?
Their biggest driving philosophy is that any government restriction on our corporate overlords is worse than the nazis. This is why while libertardarians like to talk about freedom, the only possible outcome of following their delusional ideas is feudalism where the rich own everybody else outright. It's all well and good to claim you believe in freedom, but when you're too fucking stupid and ignorant of history to understand basic inevitable fact that left to itself power concentrates up you're inevitably going to be nothing but a tool of monsters.
Progressivism/Socialism/Fascism/Communism/etc; all branches of the same diseased tree.
Fascism, along with Monarchy, Aristocracy and Theocracy are the real world instantiations of the right. America defined itself by its opposition to the right in the American Revolution. In both World Wars we were on the side of Liberalism and the left against the right. Only in the fringe extreme does the left start looking a lot like the right, but the right starts there.
Fundamentally, the definingly Liberal hallmark of America ("We hold these truths to be self evident: That all men are created equal.") is a value the left believes in but thinks further that the power of the state should be used to enforce said equality. The problem with the left only comes in the extremes when equality under the law becomes the Spartan ideal that no man can own more than another (except, of course that some pigs are more equal than others) and that the power of the state should be used to enforce that equality. The right is defined by the pigs who are more equal in that the only purpose of the state is to enforce that inequality for their benefit on the backs of everybody else.
This is why the rise of the right in America post WW2 which started spiraling into hell with Reagan defines the demolition of the great experiment.
The detritus one can use as evidence includes yourself and your failure to even be capable of understanding the basic definitions. The representatives of the Crown, the Aristocracy and the church sat on the right.
I mean, you're argument almost always have come down to ad hom attacks.
I think you meant ad hominem but since it does not apply I'm not sure.
So, to be clear:
You recognized the common abbreviation he used and chose that as your sole point of rebuttal. Was this to appear more rational by ignoring the grammatical errors while maintaining an air of ignorance as if that elevated you above a ordinary grammar nazi troll?
This is exactly the inability to understand basic critical thinking skils which along with religious extremism and making a fetish of bootlicking the rich have become the planks of the post-Reagan GOP platform we've been saddled with ever since Barry Goldwater pointed out the dangers of dragging the religious nutters out of their welfare boonies.
The US never went to the middle east to tell them to lower their living standards and work for minimum wage
No, we just went in, murdered their deocratically elected leaders and installed brutal right wing thugs who tortured and murdered anyone who didn't bend over and start taking it up the ass for the benefit of American industrialists. Do you honestly not know anything about the history of US foreign policy?!?
nevermind what it actually is, DETAILS ARE NOT IMPORTANT!!1 I bet Adam slept with gods girlfriend.
No, it's explicitly spelled out. They ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. This was evil, which by design and definition they weren't capable of understanding prior to eating the fruit. Due to this, we're all born with that sin on our heads and need Jeebus to kill himself in a mildly painful way (relative to actual history as well as with other purely mythical characters) in order to allow god to forgive himself for such a schoolboy logic error.
We call that ex post facto, understand that it's crap and hence demonstrate conclusively that secular morals make one morally superior to the JudeoChristianMuslimAsshat god.
Oh yeah, it's all Eve's fault so screw women, they're second class.
Most Christians will tell you that the GoE story is allegory, and that Christ died to absolve us from all the sins that we commit as simply fallible humans.
So, you're saying that most Christians believe that god sacrificed himself to himself in order to make himself feel better about him screwing up while still failing to take responsibility for his failure and trying to pass the blame onto us who turned out exactly how he chose to make us?
I definitely see why most of the more intelligent and educated reject that trash out of hand, and the rise of such clearly deluded thinking is dragging the wrold to hell.
Christianity teaches no such thing. That assertion is about 179 degrees divergent from Christianity.
Yeah, baptism is just a myth the Atheists made up. Nobody is stupid enough to think that letting a pedophile rub magic water on their baby will appease an evil demon.
I am ever so grateful to the founding fathers, all Christians (mostly Deists),
Among the trove of really stupid things factually wrong with this sentence, the fact that the two sets Christians and Deists are by definition disjoint might be the most amusing.
I was just at a public school function the other day were the pledge of allegiance was recited. It seems to me that not all vestiges of religion have been "sanitized" from the public square.
You do know that the god bit of the pledge was only added by religious extremists in the 50s, right? There is no sanitizing of religion, the religious have fairly recently started attacking the fundamental basis of this country, lying about it, and then attacking any patriot who stands up against them.
the USA isn't a direct democracy; it doesn't necessarily have to enact the majority opinion on everything.
Even more to the point, since it is a Constitutional Republic, and the Constitution specifically bans that sort of nonsense in order to avoid the well known horrors of religious mob rule it's rabidly anti-American to even try.
They set up their own theocratic territories which doubled down on the behaviors they had left England to escape.
Well....the religious oppression they were fleeing was them not being allowed to engage in oppression (torture, murder etc.).
It wasn't that they were just trying to practice their religion in peace and were prevented. The Puritans et al were rotten from the start and were not allowed to go around burning people alive for petty blasphemies and so they split to somewhere where they could. So, had they actually doubled down on the behaviors they were trying to escape ( religious tolerance ) they wouldn't have built so many diseased societies. Luckily these were only settlers. The founders of America were almost 100% not Christian.
No, they weren't. Only hers is hate speech. Saying fuck the Nazis isn't hate speech. Saying since you were born a certain way you and everyone like you should be put to death is. It's terrifying that you can't actually tell the difference between those things.
They censored the one that wasn't even intended to be hateful while allowing replies that were specifically designed to make that child feel bad.
There is no other possible intent behind her hate screed than spreading hatred and violence against a large group of people who have done nothing wrong. Due to her intentional malicious action, people wrote things in response to her unprovoked intentionally malicious actions, intended to make her feel bad for being an intentionally malicious hate monger. That was an effect *she chose to cause* by being a vile bigoted hate mongering little shit. Night and day.
Certainly if your respect for others' creeds and religions is so low that you will brand them "hate speakers" merely for quoting a religion's holy book
Calling people "abominations" who should be put to death because of an accident of birth *is* hate speech. This is not at all ambiguous, and that it is hate speech quoted from a book of religious fairy tales does nothing whatsoever to change that. No decent person could have respect for that vile trash. Trying to portray this as if people are calling it hate in order to disrespect a religion is deeply dishonest on your part. Those religions disrespect decent people by consisting primarily of racist bigoted mysoginistic trash as she went out of her way to hilight.
. This girl should be allowed to read from her Bible. The other users should also be allowed to insult her, provided they don't threaten her. Do you see how I am not taking sides here, how I am not being a hypocritical bastard about this? Unlike Google?
Google is not at all hypocritical, you are. She is making malicious hate speech for the sole purpose of spreading Christofascist hatred and violence against people whose only "crime" was being born a certain way. The people attacking her are attacking her because she is intentionally and maliciously spreading ignorant hatred against people who have done nothing whatsoever in any way wrong...or at least nothing at all in any way wrong which she is raving about. One case is spreading ignorant hatred and explicit death threats (quoting the bible on gays *is* making an explicit death threat against millions of people, there is no ambiguity there.) of someone for something they have no control over even though it is completely morally neutral. The other is decent people telling an ignorant hate-mongering piece of shit that society doesn't tolerate that Nazi bullshit.
You, trying to equate spreading ignorant bigotry, hatred and death threats with objecting to that same thing make yourself a hypocritical liar.
Perhaps you really dislike religious people and are glad to see one suffer
She's not being attacked for being religious, liar, she's being attacked for spouting the same exact bullshit the Christofascist Nazis used to justify rounding up and gassing gays in WW2.
see is a bunch of overgrown children who will use any excuse to make people behave the way they personally think they should.
No, you're just whining becasue you're an ignorant hate mongering bigot and your views are not acceptable to decent people in this day and age. Google doesn't choose to support Nazi propaganda and you feel they should be forced to spread your vile ignorant shit. Too bad, she can speak as freely as she likes about her hate-mongering delusions, but Google is under no onus to help her with something so disgusting.
Fortunately, I was taught that my place in the universe is to worship
You consider it fortunate that you were raised to be nothing but a boot licker? Seriously? That is one of the saddest and most pathetic things I've ever heard.
Not everybody calling himself a Christian is actually following Christ
More like, nobody could be. First, Jesus isn't even an historical figure, he's mythical, hence never existed hence can't be followed.
Further, much of what was attributed to him wasn't even written until hundreds of years after the invention of the myth.
Plus, the Jesus character was quite clear that *all* of the evil Old Testament crap like murdering anyone who blasphemed etc. would stay in place until the end of time. He was quite explicit on that point. He came to change none of god's rules by so much as a single letter. So if you think it's ok to eat bacon? You are not following Jesus, you've decided that you know better and he didn't really mean what he said. Given that there is so much contradictory and blatantly ignorant nonsense in the bible, nobody could possibly be a real follower of Jesus.
It does seem pointless to me to use a computer to create a proof,
I believe the poster you're responding to meant something different.
Say you have some complicated ("chaotic", maybe) formula which determines the behavior of a system. Say just to make it easy the system is a single particle moving under various influences. Now say you know where it is now (it's a big particle like a planet or something, so ignore Heisenberg and such) and you want to know where it will be 500 seconds later. Many systems currently require iterating through all 500 steps or other time intensive tasks in order to find that answer due to only having approximate methods with which to solve the system. An analytic solution as the OP was using it would be more like a function where you plug in 500 and get your answer. If you plugged in 500 Billion, you'd find that answer in more or less the same amount of time as for 500.
So computers can potentially make taking the wetware time to find an analytic solution to an equation (system of differential equations, optimization problem etc.) less valuable in some of the meanings of the word, if in practical applications you can get say 10 decimal places closer to the answer than you need in microseconds.
Computers proving theorems is a different thing. The Four Color Problem is the most common example of that I'm aware of. I think it's cool that people managed to do that, but it's unsatisfying in that it doesn't really add much in the way of understanding. Some theorems people have come up with are similarly unsatisfying. Existence theorems which demonstrate that a certain thing must exist in some given circumstances yet provide no clue whatsoever as to how to actually find it would fit. Also, brute force methods in general (which is what the four color proof is, only done via computer to save time) tend to leave mathematicians satisfied that the given fact is true yet still looking for a more elegant solution that provides greater understanding. Andrew Wiles's proof of Fermat's Last Theorem is fundamentally different in that it did (eventually) provide a huge degree of insight showing unsuspected ties between disparate branches of mathematics. Technically, Wiles didn't prove Fermat's Last Theorem, he proved the Taniyama Shimura conjecture (demonstrating a deep relationship between elliptic curves and modular forms) which someone else had proven would imply FLT if true.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe I need to work on my reading comprehension, but are you saying Ron Paul believes you don't own your body
Maybe you just need to pay a tiny bit of attention to the real world? Ron Paul has voted in favor of religious extremist positions with respect to women's rights. Sure he doesn't believe in big invasive government. Unless it's to support rabidly anti-American religious nutter positions.
Ron Paul is the only hope we have to cast off our corporate overlords.
This blind idiocy is exactly what is wrong with libertardarians.
Ron Paul is without competition the absolute worst we can do with respect to corporate power. That is the entire point of libertardarianism. Why do you think the Koch brothers were founding members?!?
Their biggest driving philosophy is that any government restriction on our corporate overlords is worse than the nazis.
This is why while libertardarians like to talk about freedom, the only possible outcome of following their delusional ideas is feudalism where the rich own everybody else outright. It's all well and good to claim you believe in freedom, but when you're too fucking stupid and ignorant of history to understand basic inevitable fact that left to itself power concentrates up you're inevitably going to be nothing but a tool of monsters.
Your lack of knowledge about Citrix XenServer pegs you. Look it up. Find out where it plays.
And XenSource as well. They don't get paid for it, but it is market share. We have hundreds of them running thousands of VMs :-)
Yeah, but only if you tie the laces together. Crossed over.
Progressivism/Socialism/Fascism/Communism/etc; all branches of the same diseased tree.
Fascism, along with Monarchy, Aristocracy and Theocracy are the real world instantiations of the right.
America defined itself by its opposition to the right in the American Revolution. In both World Wars we were on the side of Liberalism and the left against the right.
Only in the fringe extreme does the left start looking a lot like the right, but the right starts there.
Fundamentally, the definingly Liberal hallmark of America ("We hold these truths to be self evident: That all men are created equal.") is a value the left believes in but thinks further that the power of the state should be used to enforce said equality. The problem with the left only comes in the extremes when equality under the law becomes the Spartan ideal that no man can own more than another (except, of course that some pigs are more equal than others) and that the power of the state should be used to enforce that equality.
The right is defined by the pigs who are more equal in that the only purpose of the state is to enforce that inequality for their benefit on the backs of everybody else.
This is why the rise of the right in America post WW2 which started spiraling into hell with Reagan defines the demolition of the great experiment.
The detritus one can use as evidence includes yourself and your failure to even be capable of understanding the basic definitions. The representatives of the Crown, the Aristocracy and the church sat on the right.
I mean, you're argument almost always have come down to ad hom attacks.
I think you meant ad hominem but since it does not apply I'm not sure.
So, to be clear:
You recognized the common abbreviation he used and chose that as your sole point of rebuttal. Was this to appear more rational by ignoring the grammatical errors while maintaining an air of ignorance as if that elevated you above a ordinary grammar nazi troll?
This is exactly the inability to understand basic critical thinking skils which along with religious extremism and making a fetish of bootlicking the rich have become the planks of the post-Reagan GOP platform we've been saddled with ever since Barry Goldwater pointed out the dangers of dragging the religious nutters out of their welfare boonies.
A dune sage brush lizard bit my sister once...
Kristalnacht was even on Luther's birthday. The holocaust was quite explicitly a Christian activity.
The Beethoven ones are the bomb.
The US never went to the middle east to tell them to lower their living standards and work for minimum wage
No, we just went in, murdered their deocratically elected leaders and installed brutal right wing thugs who tortured and murdered anyone who didn't bend over and start taking it up the ass for the benefit of American industrialists.
Do you honestly not know anything about the history of US foreign policy?!?
Phew, and now we're back on Star Trek. Thread saved.
If you don't fill it with water, then it's not an aquarium, it's a terrarium.
nevermind what it actually is, DETAILS ARE NOT IMPORTANT!!1
I bet Adam slept with gods girlfriend.
No, it's explicitly spelled out. They ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. This was evil, which by design and definition they weren't capable of understanding prior to eating the fruit. Due to this, we're all born with that sin on our heads and need Jeebus to kill himself in a mildly painful way (relative to actual history as well as with other purely mythical characters) in order to allow god to forgive himself for such a schoolboy logic error.
We call that ex post facto, understand that it's crap and hence demonstrate conclusively that secular morals make one morally superior to the JudeoChristianMuslimAsshat god.
Oh yeah, it's all Eve's fault so screw women, they're second class.
Most Christians will tell you that the GoE story is allegory, and that Christ died to absolve us from all the sins that we commit as simply fallible humans.
So, you're saying that most Christians believe that god sacrificed himself to himself in order to make himself feel better about him screwing up while still failing to take responsibility for his failure and trying to pass the blame onto us who turned out exactly how he chose to make us?
I definitely see why most of the more intelligent and educated reject that trash out of hand, and the rise of such clearly deluded thinking is dragging the wrold to hell.
IMHO these are obviously rules created by men and NOT a divine overload.
Well, what if it were a childish, petty, malicious divine overlord?
Christianity teaches no such thing. That assertion is about 179 degrees divergent from Christianity.
Yeah, baptism is just a myth the Atheists made up. Nobody is stupid enough to think that letting a pedophile rub magic water on their baby will appease an evil demon.
I am ever so grateful to the founding fathers, all Christians (mostly Deists),
Among the trove of really stupid things factually wrong with this sentence, the fact that the two sets Christians and Deists are by definition disjoint might be the most amusing.
I was just at a public school function the other day were the pledge of allegiance was recited. It seems to me that not all vestiges of religion have been "sanitized" from the public square.
You do know that the god bit of the pledge was only added by religious extremists in the 50s, right? There is no sanitizing of religion, the religious have fairly recently started attacking the fundamental basis of this country, lying about it, and then attacking any patriot who stands up against them.
the USA isn't a direct democracy; it doesn't necessarily have to enact the majority opinion on everything.
Even more to the point, since it is a Constitutional Republic, and the Constitution specifically bans that sort of nonsense in order to avoid the well known horrors of religious mob rule it's rabidly anti-American to even try.
They set up their own theocratic territories which doubled down on the behaviors they had left England to escape.
Well....the religious oppression they were fleeing was them not being allowed to engage in oppression (torture, murder etc.).
It wasn't that they were just trying to practice their religion in peace and were prevented. The Puritans et al were rotten from the start and were not allowed to go around burning people alive for petty blasphemies and so they split to somewhere where they could.
So, had they actually doubled down on the behaviors they were trying to escape ( religious tolerance ) they wouldn't have built so many diseased societies.
Luckily these were only settlers. The founders of America were almost 100% not Christian.
They were given multiple examples of hate speech.
No, they weren't. Only hers is hate speech. Saying fuck the Nazis isn't hate speech. Saying since you were born a certain way you and everyone like you should be put to death is. It's terrifying that you can't actually tell the difference between those things.
They censored the one that wasn't even intended to be hateful while allowing replies that were specifically designed to make that child feel bad.
There is no other possible intent behind her hate screed than spreading hatred and violence against a large group of people who have done nothing wrong.
Due to her intentional malicious action, people wrote things in response to her unprovoked intentionally malicious actions, intended to make her feel bad for being an intentionally malicious hate monger. That was an effect *she chose to cause* by being a vile bigoted hate mongering little shit. Night and day.
Certainly if your respect for others' creeds and religions is so low that you will brand them "hate speakers" merely for quoting a religion's holy book
Calling people "abominations" who should be put to death because of an accident of birth *is* hate speech. This is not at all ambiguous, and that it is hate speech quoted from a book of religious fairy tales does nothing whatsoever to change that. No decent person could have respect for that vile trash.
Trying to portray this as if people are calling it hate in order to disrespect a religion is deeply dishonest on your part. Those religions disrespect decent people by consisting primarily of racist bigoted mysoginistic trash as she went out of her way to hilight.
. This girl should be allowed to read from her Bible. The other users should also be allowed to insult her, provided they don't threaten her. Do you see how I am not taking sides here, how I am not being a hypocritical bastard about this? Unlike Google?
Google is not at all hypocritical, you are.
She is making malicious hate speech for the sole purpose of spreading Christofascist hatred and violence against people whose only "crime" was being born a certain way.
The people attacking her are attacking her because she is intentionally and maliciously spreading ignorant hatred against people who have done nothing whatsoever in any way wrong...or at least nothing at all in any way wrong which she is raving about.
One case is spreading ignorant hatred and explicit death threats (quoting the bible on gays *is* making an explicit death threat against millions of people, there is no ambiguity there.) of someone for something they have no control over even though it is completely morally neutral. The other is decent people telling an ignorant hate-mongering piece of shit that society doesn't tolerate that Nazi bullshit.
You, trying to equate spreading ignorant bigotry, hatred and death threats with objecting to that same thing make yourself a hypocritical liar.
Perhaps you really dislike religious people and are glad to see one suffer
She's not being attacked for being religious, liar, she's being attacked for spouting the same exact bullshit the Christofascist Nazis used to justify rounding up and gassing gays in WW2.
see is a bunch of overgrown children who will use any excuse to make people behave the way they personally think they should.
No, you're just whining becasue you're an ignorant hate mongering bigot and your views are not acceptable to decent people in this day and age. Google doesn't choose to support Nazi propaganda and you feel they should be forced to spread your vile ignorant shit. Too bad, she can speak as freely as she likes about her hate-mongering delusions, but Google is under no onus to help her with something so disgusting.
Fortunately, I was taught that my place in the universe is to worship
You consider it fortunate that you were raised to be nothing but a boot licker? Seriously? That is one of the saddest and most pathetic things I've ever heard.
Not everybody calling himself a Christian is actually following Christ
More like, nobody could be. First, Jesus isn't even an historical figure, he's mythical, hence never existed hence can't be followed.
Further, much of what was attributed to him wasn't even written until hundreds of years after the invention of the myth.
Plus, the Jesus character was quite clear that *all* of the evil Old Testament crap like murdering anyone who blasphemed etc. would stay in place until the end of time. He was quite explicit on that point. He came to change none of god's rules by so much as a single letter. So if you think it's ok to eat bacon? You are not following Jesus, you've decided that you know better and he didn't really mean what he said. Given that there is so much contradictory and blatantly ignorant nonsense in the bible, nobody could possibly be a real follower of Jesus.
It does seem pointless to me to use a computer to create a proof,
I believe the poster you're responding to meant something different.
Say you have some complicated ("chaotic", maybe) formula which determines the behavior of a system. Say just to make it easy the system is a single particle moving under various influences. Now say you know where it is now (it's a big particle like a planet or something, so ignore Heisenberg and such) and you want to know where it will be 500 seconds later. Many systems currently require iterating through all 500 steps or other time intensive tasks in order to find that answer due to only having approximate methods with which to solve the system. An analytic solution as the OP was using it would be more like a function where you plug in 500 and get your answer. If you plugged in 500 Billion, you'd find that answer in more or less the same amount of time as for 500.
So computers can potentially make taking the wetware time to find an analytic solution to an equation (system of differential equations, optimization problem etc.) less valuable in some of the meanings of the word, if in practical applications you can get say 10 decimal places closer to the answer than you need in microseconds.
Computers proving theorems is a different thing. The Four Color Problem is the most common example of that I'm aware of. I think it's cool that people managed to do that, but it's unsatisfying in that it doesn't really add much in the way of understanding. Some theorems people have come up with are similarly unsatisfying.
Existence theorems which demonstrate that a certain thing must exist in some given circumstances yet provide no clue whatsoever as to how to actually find it would fit. Also, brute force methods in general (which is what the four color proof is, only done via computer to save time) tend to leave mathematicians satisfied that the given fact is true yet still looking for a more elegant solution that provides greater understanding.
Andrew Wiles's proof of Fermat's Last Theorem is fundamentally different in that it did (eventually) provide a huge degree of insight showing unsuspected ties between disparate branches of mathematics. Technically, Wiles didn't prove Fermat's Last Theorem, he proved the Taniyama Shimura conjecture (demonstrating a deep relationship between elliptic curves and modular forms) which someone else had proven would imply FLT if true.
It's the porn talking to the video games. I'm just eavesdropping.
What about midget or dwarf? I know that one of those descriptive terms is offensive, but I don't know which.
Actually, the preferred term is now "Imp".