The rejection/overgrowth problem isn't solved yet, but it is getting closer. You can do it if you're willing to take drugs constantly.
The reason I see the blocking being a problem is that it seems you'd need hormones anyway, to cut down on sperm production. I don't know if the body would do that automatically - after all it doesn't cut back due to lack of sex. The testes just keep pumping it out. Bad choice of words, maybe, but you get the idea.
Just tie the women's tubes or something. Something reversible. To be honest I can't think of anything else reversible... tying the vas deferens doesn't seem a good idea. Then again that could make shipboard hygiene easier...
The scheme was successful, but was "undone" by Superman turning the earth backwards to reverse time and fix everything. Even by comic book standards this was pretty weak story.
Actually, he flew around it really fast, so fast that time went backwards... wasn't it some kind of really screwy application of relativity theory? Terrible though it was, I think that's pretty good for a comic as rubbishy as Superman.
[I]nvoluntary servitude generally is constitutional: that's why if you're a duly convicted prisoner, you can be ordered to work smashing rocks, or whatever they do nowadays.
I had a thought on this once... it's only the current interpretation which actually says you can't have slaves. The current interpretation places precedence as follows, correct?
Section 1. Neither slavery nor (involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted), shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
However, it could easily, & from the punctuation more correctly, be interpreted like so:
Section 1. (Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude), except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
This second would allow slavery as punishment as a result of criminal conviction. I don't doubt the first interpretation was the intended one & this is just a result of bad wording, nor do I believe the latter will be adopted any time soon, but it's an interesting academic point. To me at least.
I tend to agree with you, but in your case of no insulin & too many syringes, anybody with half a brain would nuke their syringes & leave the rest, not nuke the whole lot. That way there's no evidence of nuking at all. Unless your trash is half syringes, of course.
Is "superseeding" some sort of torrent terminology I was previously unaware of?
Yes, actually. It's a feature in Azureus designed for when you're the first or only seed. If you're not the first or only, it's particularly inefficient & screws up the balance in the torrent, so it's not recommended unless you need it. More info at the Azureus wiki.
I don't dispute the wishful thinking - like I said, communism can only work if everyone shares those wishful ideals. It fails when people try to get ahead.
Western Capitalism isn't capitalism, not pure capitalism anyway. In pure capitalism, you have no regulation, it's a true free market. All the gov't intervention you mentioned (which I understand, BTW) is taking us further towards the centralist, gov't controlled communist system. Not that that's a bad thing - again, like I said, you need somewhere in the middle. Closer to true capitalism seems better, & it's where we are. DMOs, fiscal policy, welfare (when combined with a progressive taxation system), the SEC, etc. is all centralist policy partially designed to combat the negative effects of total capitalism, i.e. people getting too far ahead. Of course it's also for stability.
I'm arguing absolutes. Noone has either a purely communist or a purely capitalist state. In either absolute, people trying to get ahead without regard for others will eventually ruin it, for opposing reasons. To balance them, we take a middle road.
What scientific evidence of workability can you have? The only thing I can think of is a working example. We don't have one of them for capitalism yet, either. Every economic system will fall prey to man's basic shittiness - even one based on that shittiness, namely capitalism. It doesn't work still, because eventually someone will by chance get big enough to dominate, & then it stops working properly, & there's no safeguard built in. Communism would work brilliantly if everyone involved had the ideals of those who created it. The same can't be said of capitalism - the very attitudes it depends on are it's greatest weakness. You'll always have those attitudes, that's why neither will work in pure form. As always when you have a spectrum, the best choice is somewhere in the middle. Probably towards capitalism's end. But none of this can be scientifically proven - you can't prove it can't work, only that it can. Since they haven't yet, there's no proof for either. Not in pure form anyway. Boy, this was a rambly post. Not too heavily thought out, either, so please excuse me if I've made some glaringly obvious mistake.
Mp3's have already created "grass roots" stars, even though I am confident the labels will deny that mp3's had any part.
Take Linkin Park - before they ever released an album, they spread their MP3s themselves, going into forums & IRC channels etc. under different names, so by the time they released an album, they were already really big. Granted, this isn't quite the angle you were talking about, but I don't know how their label could deny it in that case. Their label is Warner Bros. Records Inc., by the way.
They publicised that too - there was a ~4 page article in the Australian version of TIME a few years back where they specifically talked about it. This was before P2P became the industry's great satan, of course.
Well, if they're a member of the Church, they're by definition Catholic, but that doesn't make them Christian unless they follow Christ. 'Christian' means follower of Christ, or person of Christ, etc. Basically it means you follow Christ. I know a lot of Catholics who don't believe; can you really say they qualify?
The no true Scotsman thing is different, because the Church isn't all (or all of) Christendom, but Scotland is definitely all (& all of) Scotland. The construction of that last sentence was crap, but no doubt you get the point. The first half of your second sentence I agree with - if they follow Christ, no matter how misguidedly, they're Christian, agree with them or not.
The net isn't very reliable for urban legend type things, true or not. Too much noise, not enough signal. Thanks for the rest though; I know very little about him as a person.
Hokay... sounds like he just wanted to kill everyone. Though thinking about it, that would be about right. So we don't know how the perfect Aryans were supposed to think, then, just physical characteristics?
Oh, & you seem to know quite a bit; could you answer me this one question, that's been bugging me for years? Did he really only have one teste when they autopsied him? Kind of offtopic I know...
Basically, a Christian is a follower of Christ, specifically Jesus Christ. There's a few things you need to believe:
God made the world. No real requirements as to how, just that he did.
Jesus is the son of God, part of the Trinity.
Everyone is a sinner, it's inherent in us, because God gave us a choice, & we chose this, albeit unwittingly. It's what 'original sin' refers to - it doesn't mean we're 'bad people,' it means we're not up to scratch for God. We're not worthy of being with him, which is what heaven is.
He died to save us, meaning: he took our punishment upon himself. Since God is just, once we've done our time we're off the hook, fit to be with him. Jesus did our time for us - that's where the 'loving God' thing comes from.
He rose again, because the rest of God chose to do so. But it wasn't assured, otherwise it wouldn't have taken our punishment - meaning Jesus was willing to die eternally for us.
We have to acknowledge it, & follow him, because he didn't bring us back to God, he offered us a way back, namely himself. That's why early Christians called themselves 'Followers of the Way.'
There are certain things that you have to believe in practice, too, just because it's a total mindfuck to be serious while not believing them, but they're not really important. The best example is the virgin birth - you could rationalise it with stuff about hemaphrodites & junk, but if you believe in God, it's easy to believe he simply made her pregnant by willing it so. Nonetheless, you could still follow Jesus & think it wasn't an immaculate conception, in which case you'd still be a Christian... you'd just have to work that one out with yourself.
As an example of who doesn't qualify, take the Jehova's Witnesses. They say (well they used to, they're a changeable bunch so they might not now) that they're a Christian denomination, but they don't accept Jesus as the son of God. They don't accept the Trinity. Thus, they are not Christian, they're just a warping which happens to have similar doctrine to some real Christian denominations.
I don't know whether he was atheist or not, but this quote would seem to suggest it:
"When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity..." - Hitler (taken from the GP)
That sounds like an atheist to me, it's a common catchcry, inaccurate though it is. The only other religion it brings to mind is Scientology... I think it's safe to say he wasn't one of that lot.
Dude, I have no mod points, but rest assured you'd be getting some if I did. I so rarely see anyone on Slashdot say any of this stuff. It's all about context.
The fixation you mention is strange... in the Gospels, Jesus got angry with the Pharisees for being legalistic, & that's exactly what you're describing.
Ah, but the singular word 'porn' is the only word actually responding to the question. There is also only one word after 'one word:'; the colon indicates that whatever precedes it applies to whatever follows. So it's a correct statement;-)
I'll second that. If you see it written/typed for a few months before you ever hear it spoken, it'll be 'lie-nucks' forever. Obviously that's a rather broad generalisation, but I don't think I'll ever be able to change it in my mind...
Slashdot Mirror
Granted, but if even he finds them too "helpful," that's pretty damning.
Just out of interest, what is it that's different?
Right you are. That didn't occur to me :-) Thanks. Well, now there's only jealousy to overcome before NASA lift their ban on sex in space.
The rejection/overgrowth problem isn't solved yet, but it is getting closer. You can do it if you're willing to take drugs constantly.
The reason I see the blocking being a problem is that it seems you'd need hormones anyway, to cut down on sperm production. I don't know if the body would do that automatically - after all it doesn't cut back due to lack of sex. The testes just keep pumping it out. Bad choice of words, maybe, but you get the idea.
Just tie the women's tubes or something. Something reversible. To be honest I can't think of anything else reversible... tying the vas deferens doesn't seem a good idea. Then again that could make shipboard hygiene easier...
Actually, he flew around it really fast, so fast that time went backwards... wasn't it some kind of really screwy application of relativity theory? Terrible though it was, I think that's pretty good for a comic as rubbishy as Superman.
I dunno... there's no way I'd be invading a planet called Kirk. They could put up a defence with something far worse than fluffy pillows.
Kirk Johnson is my hero.
I had a thought on this once... it's only the current interpretation which actually says you can't have slaves. The current interpretation places precedence as follows, correct?
However, it could easily, & from the punctuation more correctly, be interpreted like so:
This second would allow slavery as punishment as a result of criminal conviction. I don't doubt the first interpretation was the intended one & this is just a result of bad wording, nor do I believe the latter will be adopted any time soon, but it's an interesting academic point. To me at least.
Monday October 10, @08:53PM
I tend to agree with you, but in your case of no insulin & too many syringes, anybody with half a brain would nuke their syringes & leave the rest, not nuke the whole lot. That way there's no evidence of nuking at all. Unless your trash is half syringes, of course.
Only nuke the incriminating stuff.
No, I haven't. Mainly because I live in Australia, & don't pay attention anyway, but still. You've made me curious... what is said garbage?
Yes, actually. It's a feature in Azureus designed for when you're the first or only seed. If you're not the first or only, it's particularly inefficient & screws up the balance in the torrent, so it's not recommended unless you need it. More info at the Azureus wiki.
I don't dispute the wishful thinking - like I said, communism can only work if everyone shares those wishful ideals. It fails when people try to get ahead.
Western Capitalism isn't capitalism, not pure capitalism anyway. In pure capitalism, you have no regulation, it's a true free market. All the gov't intervention you mentioned (which I understand, BTW) is taking us further towards the centralist, gov't controlled communist system. Not that that's a bad thing - again, like I said, you need somewhere in the middle. Closer to true capitalism seems better, & it's where we are. DMOs, fiscal policy, welfare (when combined with a progressive taxation system), the SEC, etc. is all centralist policy partially designed to combat the negative effects of total capitalism, i.e. people getting too far ahead. Of course it's also for stability.
I'm arguing absolutes. Noone has either a purely communist or a purely capitalist state. In either absolute, people trying to get ahead without regard for others will eventually ruin it, for opposing reasons. To balance them, we take a middle road.
What scientific evidence of workability can you have? The only thing I can think of is a working example. We don't have one of them for capitalism yet, either. Every economic system will fall prey to man's basic shittiness - even one based on that shittiness, namely capitalism. It doesn't work still, because eventually someone will by chance get big enough to dominate, & then it stops working properly, & there's no safeguard built in. Communism would work brilliantly if everyone involved had the ideals of those who created it. The same can't be said of capitalism - the very attitudes it depends on are it's greatest weakness. You'll always have those attitudes, that's why neither will work in pure form. As always when you have a spectrum, the best choice is somewhere in the middle. Probably towards capitalism's end. But none of this can be scientifically proven - you can't prove it can't work, only that it can. Since they haven't yet, there's no proof for either. Not in pure form anyway. Boy, this was a rambly post. Not too heavily thought out, either, so please excuse me if I've made some glaringly obvious mistake.
Take Linkin Park - before they ever released an album, they spread their MP3s themselves, going into forums & IRC channels etc. under different names, so by the time they released an album, they were already really big. Granted, this isn't quite the angle you were talking about, but I don't know how their label could deny it in that case. Their label is Warner Bros. Records Inc., by the way.
They publicised that too - there was a ~4 page article in the Australian version of TIME a few years back where they specifically talked about it. This was before P2P became the industry's great satan, of course.
Well, if they're a member of the Church, they're by definition Catholic, but that doesn't make them Christian unless they follow Christ. 'Christian' means follower of Christ, or person of Christ, etc. Basically it means you follow Christ. I know a lot of Catholics who don't believe; can you really say they qualify?
The no true Scotsman thing is different, because the Church isn't all (or all of) Christendom, but Scotland is definitely all (& all of) Scotland. The construction of that last sentence was crap, but no doubt you get the point. The first half of your second sentence I agree with - if they follow Christ, no matter how misguidedly, they're Christian, agree with them or not.
The net isn't very reliable for urban legend type things, true or not. Too much noise, not enough signal. Thanks for the rest though; I know very little about him as a person.
Hokay... sounds like he just wanted to kill everyone. Though thinking about it, that would be about right. So we don't know how the perfect Aryans were supposed to think, then, just physical characteristics?
Oh, & you seem to know quite a bit; could you answer me this one question, that's been bugging me for years? Did he really only have one teste when they autopsied him? Kind of offtopic I know...
Basically, a Christian is a follower of Christ, specifically Jesus Christ. There's a few things you need to believe:
There are certain things that you have to believe in practice, too, just because it's a total mindfuck to be serious while not believing them, but they're not really important. The best example is the virgin birth - you could rationalise it with stuff about hemaphrodites & junk, but if you believe in God, it's easy to believe he simply made her pregnant by willing it so. Nonetheless, you could still follow Jesus & think it wasn't an immaculate conception, in which case you'd still be a Christian... you'd just have to work that one out with yourself.
As an example of who doesn't qualify, take the Jehova's Witnesses. They say (well they used to, they're a changeable bunch so they might not now) that they're a Christian denomination, but they don't accept Jesus as the son of God. They don't accept the Trinity. Thus, they are not Christian, they're just a warping which happens to have similar doctrine to some real Christian denominations.
I don't know whether he was atheist or not, but this quote would seem to suggest it:
"When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity..." - Hitler (taken from the GP)
That sounds like an atheist to me, it's a common catchcry, inaccurate though it is. The only other religion it brings to mind is Scientology... I think it's safe to say he wasn't one of that lot.
You miss the point. Entirely. That or you're trolling.
Dude, I have no mod points, but rest assured you'd be getting some if I did. I so rarely see anyone on Slashdot say any of this stuff. It's all about context.
The fixation you mention is strange... in the Gospels, Jesus got angry with the Pharisees for being legalistic, & that's exactly what you're describing.
Ah, but the singular word 'porn' is the only word actually responding to the question. There is also only one word after 'one word:'; the colon indicates that whatever precedes it applies to whatever follows. So it's a correct statement ;-)
I'll second that. If you see it written/typed for a few months before you ever hear it spoken, it'll be 'lie-nucks' forever. Obviously that's a rather broad generalisation, but I don't think I'll ever be able to change it in my mind...
This is the first time I've ever seen FFII mentioned on Slashdot... now there's just FFIII remaining.