The difference is, what is the basis of the violence? Violence in atheist states generally has little to do with atheism vs. religion. Of course it happens (Christianity in China for example?) but not on any scale even approaching the amount of violence in the name of religion.
Joblessness is a state that can be altered for the better, with comparitive ease.
But if you have a terminal illness and are on, or inching closer and closer to, your death bed...guess what? There is no chance of you getting any better; in fact, it's all downhill from here on out. Why force other people to prolong their suffering? Why not let them tie up their loose ends and then off themselves, if they so desire, before they turn into half-conscious, drooling burdens?
It's plenty natural to end something destined for failure, before it ends itself. Did you ever drop a class in school/college? Did you ever re-load your game from the last save point because you knew your character was about to die? Ever cancel a project because you knew it was going to run over budget?
Obviously none of these examples are as heavyweight as the question of euthanasia but they demonstrate a similar idea: if the end result is inevitable, why not just take a shortcut that involves less pain, less suffering, less stress, less waste?
This post basically reflects my idea that suicide should be permissible for patients with terminal illnesses and no hope for survival (or rather, no hope for any sustainable quality of life). Euthanasia for people who could survive or show improvement, is a much grayer area to me though.
No, it's just the number of slashdot accounts. The number of at least semi-frequent readers is a fraction of that. The active community that actually cares is even smaller.
So your response to his rebuttal of a particular viewpoint, is to tell him to go listen to the viewpoint again? Because this time he'll have an epiphany and realize how foolish he is?
Maybe you ought to learn to argue your own point, instead of, like an ignorant sheep, passing off your own ability to judge for yourself to a movie.
It is apparent that you failed both a) your very first elementary-school chemistry test and b) your thermodynamics test.
Liquid water can easily be heated to greater than 100 degrees Celsius. Boiling occurs not at a fixed temperature, but rather at the point at which the pressure of the substance becomes greater than the pressure of the surrounding air. Try it at home--heat water for a few minutes on a gas flame. No steam? Shut off the flame. The reduction in surrounding heat will lower the temperature and thus the pressure of the air, and the water will steam--after you shut off the flame. Thus we learn that when the air is compressed, more energy (higher temperature) will be required to boil a liquid.
The suit alleged that McDonalds' coffe was kept at 190 degrees Fahrenheit. So, to make the previous paragraph irrelevant...nobody in this situation had coffee that was over 100 degrees Celsius.
As the parent here should also be modded funny. Not out of spite, but, as the Dr. Strangelove ref indicates, because it's meant to be funny. Idiot mods and all that, chop chop, move along now.
I don't understand how you can proclaim that China is on a "greater path," while at the same time professing what you seem to think is Providence's gift to the world, fascism.
Oh, wait, yes I do. You're probably thirteen years old.
I especially love where you call open-minded a society model based around single-minded pursuit of the advancement of the nation as a homogenous unit. Despite that, you just can't wait to proclaim how "...hispanics [sic]...[make] up a significant fraction of the party's membership."
As previously said, it is to generate traffic for the two phones to send back to the towers and to each other.
The interference, however, is more likely created by the phones themselves. In such proximity, the transit/receive signals likely keep overpowering each other, lowering the reception strength and coaxing more power out of each phone.
Slashdot Mirror
The difference is, what is the basis of the violence? Violence in atheist states generally has little to do with atheism vs. religion. Of course it happens (Christianity in China for example?) but not on any scale even approaching the amount of violence in the name of religion.
Joblessness is a state that can be altered for the better, with comparitive ease.
But if you have a terminal illness and are on, or inching closer and closer to, your death bed...guess what? There is no chance of you getting any better; in fact, it's all downhill from here on out. Why force other people to prolong their suffering? Why not let them tie up their loose ends and then off themselves, if they so desire, before they turn into half-conscious, drooling burdens?
It's plenty natural to end something destined for failure, before it ends itself. Did you ever drop a class in school/college? Did you ever re-load your game from the last save point because you knew your character was about to die? Ever cancel a project because you knew it was going to run over budget?
Obviously none of these examples are as heavyweight as the question of euthanasia but they demonstrate a similar idea: if the end result is inevitable, why not just take a shortcut that involves less pain, less suffering, less stress, less waste?
This post basically reflects my idea that suicide should be permissible for patients with terminal illnesses and no hope for survival (or rather, no hope for any sustainable quality of life). Euthanasia for people who could survive or show improvement, is a much grayer area to me though.
No, it's just the number of slashdot accounts. The number of at least semi-frequent readers is a fraction of that. The active community that actually cares is even smaller.
We can all tell you're about fifteen years old.
If you have to wait that long for the twenty seconds to pass so Slashdot will let you post, it means your comment is useless.
Sarcasm---->*whoosh*
/\
O --|--
|
I didn't bother to find any because he (and probably you, too) would just write them off as unreputable despite even the highest qualifications.
It must be easy for you when you can simply write off your opponents as unreputable based solely on their conclusions.
So your response to his rebuttal of a particular viewpoint, is to tell him to go listen to the viewpoint again? Because this time he'll have an epiphany and realize how foolish he is?
Maybe you ought to learn to argue your own point, instead of, like an ignorant sheep, passing off your own ability to judge for yourself to a movie.
I dunno, maybe they should spend more time at home staying in touch with the American people and less time being corrupted in Washington?
It is apparent that you failed both a) your very first elementary-school chemistry test and b) your thermodynamics test.
Liquid water can easily be heated to greater than 100 degrees Celsius. Boiling occurs not at a fixed temperature, but rather at the point at which the pressure of the substance becomes greater than the pressure of the surrounding air. Try it at home--heat water for a few minutes on a gas flame. No steam? Shut off the flame. The reduction in surrounding heat will lower the temperature and thus the pressure of the air, and the water will steam--after you shut off the flame. Thus we learn that when the air is compressed, more energy (higher temperature) will be required to boil a liquid.
The suit alleged that McDonalds' coffe was kept at 190 degrees Fahrenheit. So, to make the previous paragraph irrelevant...nobody in this situation had coffee that was over 100 degrees Celsius.
Do you want to see the list of people killed in arsons?
Do you want to see the list of police officers involved in liability suits?
Look, I know you're a lawyer and everything, but to fail the test for advertising, all you have to do it not write about yourself.
Legal commentary or discussion of legal issues is not necessarily about a lawyer or law firm. Learn to read.
It is unconstitutional for a Representative to represent fewer than 30,000 citizens.
As the parent here should also be modded funny. Not out of spite, but, as the Dr. Strangelove ref indicates, because it's meant to be funny. Idiot mods and all that, chop chop, move along now.
Oh, well, we definitely need to make sure they have updated high-altitude keyhole data.
I don't understand how you can proclaim that China is on a "greater path," while at the same time professing what you seem to think is Providence's gift to the world, fascism.
Oh, wait, yes I do. You're probably thirteen years old.
I especially love where you call open-minded a society model based around single-minded pursuit of the advancement of the nation as a homogenous unit. Despite that, you just can't wait to proclaim how "...hispanics [sic]...[make] up a significant fraction of the party's membership."
Next time, read the books before deciding.
As previously said, it is to generate traffic for the two phones to send back to the towers and to each other.
The interference, however, is more likely created by the phones themselves. In such proximity, the transit/receive signals likely keep overpowering each other, lowering the reception strength and coaxing more power out of each phone.
You're right.
Ours is "humor."
Good for you. But, for God's sake, the thing was on the front page of /. only a few days ago. Really now.
Why don't you get your disasters right? Challenger didn't explode.
Don't be a fucking karma whore, faggot.
Yeah, it's not like news organizations ever falsify, or use falsified, documents or anything.
But seriously, if that's the only mistake you were able to find, you're not fit to call yourself Grammar Anything.