If Whedon said "There will NEVER be a Serenity 2," and CNN ran the story, and then if Whedon came back to say that he "didn't mean that there WILL never be a Serenity 2," I'd believe him.
That's really the issue here. Do you believe Joss or IGN about what Joss was saying?
[snip] If you missed all the fun, at the weekend Joss responded to the latest Serenity sequel rumour and quite rightly knocked it on the head. Several sites picked up on what he said and took his remarks to mean that there would be never be a sequel to Serenity. [snip]
[snip] Isn't there any ACTUAL news to get wrong? Sorry about all this; it might be best if I just stay off the computer for a while. Or just glut the feed with wild conjecture. Hmm, let's see... I'm me, so... let's glut! Here are some ABSOLUTELY TRUE statements of factiness. Gentlemen, start your websites. [snip]
Joss was putting to rest the rumor that he was working on Serenity 2, not saying that there will never be a Serenity 2.
What's distorting? The Democrats voted 106:92. That's a Democrat vote against net neutrality.
You put the blame soley on the Republicans. You seem to think that your Democrat party are angels. I'm just pointing out that the majority of Democrats voted the same way as the Republicans.
And to boot, this vote does not directly address individuals. It's bigger businesses VS. smaller businesses. It does not directly involve you or I.
I was thinking the exact same thing. Maybe even, to show them who's boss, Google could block all access from ISPs that support the QoS BS. Just for one day. Call it a warning shot.
I would truely love for you to explain how, there's no interaction, no context, nothing for the little brain to attempt to comprehend.
Interaction is not necessary to learn. Information is. But it doesn't need to be interactive.
They're basically floating around in a warm, moving, sensory deprivation tank with life support.
Muffled sounds, sure. But not a complete absence of sound. Not a complete absence of feeling. A baby can feel it's own hands, arms, body etc. while it's in the womb. It can be learning about itself in that time. Or you think that babies are deaf and have no sense of touch while in the womb?
Nothing particular, but as much as possible.
As long as there is sufficient stimulation
That's not a very scientific answer.
and most importantly, lots of new stimulations
What, do you regress to a state of non-being if you don't keep getting new stimulations? That is what we're talking about, right? A state of being.
Yes, you are. A child 5 minutes outside the womb is not significantly different than it was 10 minutes before.
And next....denying women the right to contraception as well
Heroin might be a contraceptive, but it's not opposed to or banned for it's contraceptive effects. Likewise, some contraceptive drugs are abortifacts. That doesn't mean they're opposed to for the fact of being contraceptives. I count myself as one against abortifacts.
People like you won't be happy until women are just subservient, obedient, baby factories.
The natural purpose for sex is reproduction. If you're not having sex for reproduction, you'd better take precautions before jumping into the sack. Don't drink and drive if you don't want an accident and don't fuck around carelessly if you don't want an "accident". You should be responsible with your pecker (or substitute with your proper genitals). What the fuck do they teach you in sexual education classes? Don't you know that BABIES come from there?
I'm simply against you making it the CHILD's pain because YOU fucked up. Take responsibility for your mistakes instead of murdering an innocent child over it. Because it's not justifiable to cause the child pain for your fucking mistake.
Oh, and by the way, when a child is aborted, often it's not killed prior to being removed from the womb. It remains alive for a period of time, capable of interacting with the world around it. (One even survived and was picked up from a dumpster.) According to your definition here, if a fetus is still alive after being removed from the womb (during the process of abortion) it should therefore be illegal to kill it. Furthermore, those who are capable of assisting a child in distress can be held accountable legally if the child is neglected. That would mean, for abortions to be performed legally, the child must be killed before being taken from the womb, right?
Would the pain of a pair of forceps crushing the child's skull be considered "interaction", "comprehension" or "a learning experience" that would then make the child a "being" by your definition? Or the pain of a needle injecting a poison that burns in your veins? Can you kill an unborn child without pain, which is instructional and interactive?
I'm sure pain is no factor with you. No concern for the pain a baby goes through when it's murdered by hands that have pulled it from it's mother's womb.
Very well, you have begun to provide actual grounds for an argument. (Even though those grounds appear to be the location of an outhouse.) Now, perhaps, we can start an actual discussion on this topic.
"brain has to be out in the world" That is total nonsense. You have a capacity for learning without being in contact with the world. Would it be permissible to kill a child who has gone from the womb to in an incubator? They still haven't "been out in the world" in a way that's significantly different than being in the womb still. And how much of this stimulation is required? Visual stimulation? Audial stimulation? Contact stimulation? Contact stimulation is the only one you have a chance at standing on without including those who are born blind or those who are born deaf in your definition of children you can murder. Those born blind and/or deaf have not been "stimulated" by the world like the rest of us. And at 1 year of age, they've probably been stimulated less than a child with good hearing would be stimulated in the third trimester. Therefore, an unborn child has the capacity to be stimulated more by the world than a deaf and blind child. But maybe you're for throwing crippled babies to the wolves in addition to killing the unborn.
I asked for a concise definition. One that wouldn't include those who have already been birthed. I believe you have failed. Please return to the original question.
If you understood exactly how full of shit you are, maybe you'd understand why people like myself can't agree with you or permit you to justify infanticide. But it's clear you're a pompous asshole who has no capacity for humility and honest discourse.
Overselling bandwidth is a common practice. It's acceptable because most users don't use anywhere near the bandwidth they've paid for. Someone else gets to use it then. But when the users collectively start to consume the full bandwidth available on a regular basis, the service provider HAD BETTER GET THEIR ASS INTO GEAR AND ACQUIRE MORE BANDWIDTH to support what they sold.
The QoS they've proposed has nothing to do with that. It's more like you've paid for 5mbps upload (as a server/content provider) but you're throttled to 128kbps per connection unless you pay the QoS tax. So it doesn't matter what bandwidth your customers have, none of them can download (from you) at speeds greater than 2-3 times that of a 56k dialup modem.
Please explain how a fetus, which from the moment of conception is capable in and of itself of developing into a fully grown human if it's given nutrition and protection, is not a being? When does it become a being?
What is the thing that eventually defines an embryo-fetus-child as a being? Are there any people in the world who also fail to meet the criteria of "being" as per your answer to the previous question? (If so, please return to the previous question and try again.)
If you can't answer those questions, I don't believe you can honestly justify abortion as a legal procedure.
And when answering these questions, please remember the rule of prime numbers. The number 1 is not prime even though it is only divisible by itself and 1. You can't say a fetus is not a being simply because it's a fetus.
The cells are human. Now, tell me, are they living? Is it a being?
A living human being?
Not just potential, it is living? Or it's not living? Or is the being part what you consider potential? Does it merely have the potential to be an entity? Is the line where entity and potential entity drawn at self-sustainence? Where is the line drawn? Can you draw the line, clearly and concisely so that it does not include those who have already been birthed?
There was nothing wrong with his analogy. You're just one of the bigots who doesn't like those humans in question to be considered humans. That fits in pretty well with his analogy, too, in case you didn't notice.
By reason of the (blah blah) Amendment (I don't remember which... I don't care to look it up right now, maybe the 14th), which extends the First Amendment to apply to all branches of the governing body, which includes school districts, through which we get to the conclusion that teachers may not promote any religious activity in school. Based on that court ruling, they (teachers and members of the school board, as a governing body authorized by the United States) are therefore forbidden from infringing on the freedom of speech, the free exercise of religion etc etc ad nausium.
However, it's unlikely that such a thing could ever happen unless such corporations are already depriving other people's rights... or the people sell themselves into a system that does not promote their own growth.
If ever "that one corporation" owns pretty much everything, revolution will follow. In one way or another. If balance and harmony are not found, upheaval is inevitable. A great mob has power to overturn just about anything. And the greater the repression, the sooner and more violent the revolution is. The cycle will begin anew.
Governments define who may be upper class. (Oh, there you go. Bringing class into it again.) Capitalism is the only one where a man can become upper class by his own labor.
Governments that try to abolish classes still as a government body maintain a higher class than the people. The people, when they understand that they are all one class, may become lazy to no diminishment (as they perceive) of their standards of living. But as a whole society, instead of working hard to produce wealth, sink into poverty while feeling content. Contentment is easy when nobody has more than what you have. You can feel well established when your few of possessions are comparable to anyone else's. With that in mind, you also can't become any greater than your neighbor. No room for dreams or aspiration.
But these last hundred years belonged to those who dreamed of becoming more, of having more and of doing more. That is capitalism. You can't have this kind of industrial revolution without the total freedom of personal property. The more taxation and redistribution of wealth, the more you discourage people from becoming a part of this revolution.
That's usually caused by a large piece of data choking up the output stream, causing the buffer to be filled (with nulls) faster than it's being sent to it's destination. A poor connection can also cause problems with backflow, where your own output is being looped back, possibly in combination with the other end of the connection sending data to your output stream rather than being open to receive on that line.
The question is, does your overflow continue to happen after you have stopped filling the buffer with nulls? If so, the problem may be solved by simply compressing your data to clear the pipes.
Plung3r is a cross-platform utility designed to handle this kind of operation. But it's not inteded for use on personal input streams. It may carry viruses or other harmful trojans/malware/general crap after it's been installed and used.
When you capitalize the first letter in a noun it becomes a proper name. It becomes more than just the meaning of the word. I could accept the arabic term for "servant" (rough translation, muslim) as long as it's clear you're not trying to convince us that it's the same as the Arabic word "Servant" (Muslim). Likewise for Islam. Make it clear you're using the word for it's actual definition rather than as a proper name.
But if Abraham said "I am the first of submitters" then either Abraham (the prophet) was not a very good prophet or the Quran is wrong when it says Adam and Eve were "submitters" as well?
And you surely don't mean each religion, unless designated to be each among the three. Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Other religions, even other monotheisms are rejected, correct? Since others are rejected, on what basis should one from Judaism or Christianity identify Islam as true? Did Allah ever show proof? Here's an old commandment. On the testimony of two or three witnesses shall a man be condemned to death. Muhammad is only one witness. That would be insufficiant to condemn a man to death by the ancient law, which was given to Moses. Is there a similar commandment in the Quran?
Your faith (Islam) claims foundation upon the faith of Abraham. Islam, as a recognized religion, does not preceed Christianity and Judaism, which both make the same claim. But Islam does claim that it's progression is even from Judaism and Christianity, and that Judaism and Christianity (as a general rule) have fallen away. Right? Therefore, in the era when Islam considered Judaism as pure, it would be equally correct to claim that Adam and Eve were Jewish? And when Christianity was considered pure, it would also be correct to claim that Adam and Eve were Christians? Therefore, Adam & Eve were just as jewish and christian as they were muslim.
That was only one critical aspect of my post. The other critical aspect is that it's dishonest to credit something prior to it's appearance in history. Islam does not appear in history prior to Muhammad.
The Quran commends those "people of the book" (christians and jews) who do not stray from the purity of monotheism or something to that effect, right? Would you also say that those faithful "people of the book" are truly muslims? You'd have to, if you wish to claim that Adam, Even, Abraham and Jesus were muslim. To include one for reason of faithfulness and exclude another despite faithfulness is dishonest.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, and it's amazing that it still adds up to 13 if you switch the numbers around, 1+1+3+2+6 = 13. WOW!
I can't believe you have to explain AYBABTU http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AYBABTU on slashdot.
If Whedon said "There will NEVER be a Serenity 2," and CNN ran the story, and then if Whedon came back to say that he "didn't mean that there WILL never be a Serenity 2," I'd believe him.
That's really the issue here. Do you believe Joss or IGN about what Joss was saying?
The article is exagerated.
Many sites ran with similar stories, taking Joss Whedon's words out of context.
From Whedonesque http://whedonesque.com/comments/11513#144407:
[snip]
If you missed all the fun, at the weekend Joss responded to the latest Serenity sequel rumour and quite rightly knocked it on the head. Several sites picked up on what he said and took his remarks to mean that there would be never be a sequel to Serenity.
[snip]
And in this thread, Joss Whedon replies http://whedonesque.com/comments/11513#144407 with the following:
[snip]
Isn't there any ACTUAL news to get wrong? Sorry about all this; it might be best if I just stay off the computer for a while. Or just glut the feed with wild conjecture. Hmm, let's see... I'm me, so... let's glut! Here are some ABSOLUTELY TRUE statements of factiness. Gentlemen, start your websites.
[snip]
Joss was putting to rest the rumor that he was working on Serenity 2, not saying that there will never be a Serenity 2.
The only one that I have seen mentioned is the "roll call" to pass the bill, which sealed the bill without the ammendment.
I realized that's what I was quoting. But a vote to pass the bill without the ammendment is effectively a vote against the ammendment.
Who's siding with the Republicans?
What's distorting? The Democrats voted 106:92. That's a Democrat vote against net neutrality.
You put the blame soley on the Republicans. You seem to think that your Democrat party are angels. I'm just pointing out that the majority of Democrats voted the same way as the Republicans.
And to boot, this vote does not directly address individuals. It's bigger businesses VS. smaller businesses. It does not directly involve you or I.
Your polarized politics aren't helping you.
Who do you think owns the pipes between the U.S and Europe?
Heck, let's take this a bit further.
You might have noticed, by the vote count, if ALL Republicans were absent the result would STILL be the same.
Thus, the Democrats voted against Net Neutrality.
since the Republicans are the ones that voted against Net Neutrality.
Republicans, 215:8. Democrats, 106:92.
You mean, since the Republicans and HALF THE DEMOCRATS.
I was thinking the exact same thing. Maybe even, to show them who's boss, Google could block all access from ISPs that support the QoS BS. Just for one day. Call it a warning shot.
That just might make them shit their pants.
I would truely love for you to explain how, there's no interaction, no context, nothing for the little brain to attempt to comprehend.
= vn20030310060809106C507807&set_id=1
Interaction is not necessary to learn. Information is. But it doesn't need to be interactive.
They're basically floating around in a warm, moving, sensory deprivation tank with life support.
Muffled sounds, sure. But not a complete absence of sound. Not a complete absence of feeling. A baby can feel it's own hands, arms, body etc. while it's in the womb. It can be learning about itself in that time. Or you think that babies are deaf and have no sense of touch while in the womb?
Nothing particular, but as much as possible.
As long as there is sufficient stimulation
That's not a very scientific answer.
and most importantly, lots of new stimulations
What, do you regress to a state of non-being if you don't keep getting new stimulations? That is what we're talking about, right? A state of being.
"Probably", "therefore" wow, wonderful logic you've got going there.
Yeah. That's a great argument, too.
I'm not the one justifying infanticide.
Yes, you are. A child 5 minutes outside the womb is not significantly different than it was 10 minutes before.
And next....denying women the right to contraception as well
Heroin might be a contraceptive, but it's not opposed to or banned for it's contraceptive effects. Likewise, some contraceptive drugs are abortifacts. That doesn't mean they're opposed to for the fact of being contraceptives. I count myself as one against abortifacts.
People like you won't be happy until women are just subservient, obedient, baby factories.
The natural purpose for sex is reproduction. If you're not having sex for reproduction, you'd better take precautions before jumping into the sack. Don't drink and drive if you don't want an accident and don't fuck around carelessly if you don't want an "accident". You should be responsible with your pecker (or substitute with your proper genitals). What the fuck do they teach you in sexual education classes? Don't you know that BABIES come from there?
I'm simply against you making it the CHILD's pain because YOU fucked up. Take responsibility for your mistakes instead of murdering an innocent child over it. Because it's not justifiable to cause the child pain for your fucking mistake.
Oh, and by the way, when a child is aborted, often it's not killed prior to being removed from the womb. It remains alive for a period of time, capable of interacting with the world around it. (One even survived and was picked up from a dumpster.) According to your definition here, if a fetus is still alive after being removed from the womb (during the process of abortion) it should therefore be illegal to kill it. Furthermore, those who are capable of assisting a child in distress can be held accountable legally if the child is neglected. That would mean, for abortions to be performed legally, the child must be killed before being taken from the womb, right?
Would the pain of a pair of forceps crushing the child's skull be considered "interaction", "comprehension" or "a learning experience" that would then make the child a "being" by your definition? Or the pain of a needle injecting a poison that burns in your veins? Can you kill an unborn child without pain, which is instructional and interactive?
I'm sure pain is no factor with you. No concern for the pain a baby goes through when it's murdered by hands that have pulled it from it's mother's womb.
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?click_id=15&art_id
"were arrested and charged with attempted murder."
"If the baby dies, they will face murder charges."
Do you agree that it was attempted murder? Would it be murder if the child died?
Very well, you have begun to provide actual grounds for an argument. (Even though those grounds appear to be the location of an outhouse.) Now, perhaps, we can start an actual discussion on this topic.
"brain has to be out in the world"
That is total nonsense. You have a capacity for learning without being in contact with the world. Would it be permissible to kill a child who has gone from the womb to in an incubator? They still haven't "been out in the world" in a way that's significantly different than being in the womb still. And how much of this stimulation is required? Visual stimulation? Audial stimulation? Contact stimulation? Contact stimulation is the only one you have a chance at standing on without including those who are born blind or those who are born deaf in your definition of children you can murder. Those born blind and/or deaf have not been "stimulated" by the world like the rest of us. And at 1 year of age, they've probably been stimulated less than a child with good hearing would be stimulated in the third trimester. Therefore, an unborn child has the capacity to be stimulated more by the world than a deaf and blind child. But maybe you're for throwing crippled babies to the wolves in addition to killing the unborn.
I asked for a concise definition. One that wouldn't include those who have already been birthed. I believe you have failed. Please return to the original question.
If you understood exactly how full of shit you are, maybe you'd understand why people like myself can't agree with you or permit you to justify infanticide. But it's clear you're a pompous asshole who has no capacity for humility and honest discourse.
Overselling bandwidth is a common practice. It's acceptable because most users don't use anywhere near the bandwidth they've paid for. Someone else gets to use it then. But when the users collectively start to consume the full bandwidth available on a regular basis, the service provider HAD BETTER GET THEIR ASS INTO GEAR AND ACQUIRE MORE BANDWIDTH to support what they sold.
The QoS they've proposed has nothing to do with that. It's more like you've paid for 5mbps upload (as a server/content provider) but you're throttled to 128kbps per connection unless you pay the QoS tax. So it doesn't matter what bandwidth your customers have, none of them can download (from you) at speeds greater than 2-3 times that of a 56k dialup modem.
So can you answer the question? When does it begin? If it's not so mystical, you can answer when it begins, right?
When does this awareness begin? Can it be measured?
Please explain how a fetus, which from the moment of conception is capable in and of itself of developing into a fully grown human if it's given nutrition and protection, is not a being? When does it become a being?
What is the thing that eventually defines an embryo-fetus-child as a being? Are there any people in the world who also fail to meet the criteria of "being" as per your answer to the previous question? (If so, please return to the previous question and try again.)
If you can't answer those questions, I don't believe you can honestly justify abortion as a legal procedure.
And when answering these questions, please remember the rule of prime numbers. The number 1 is not prime even though it is only divisible by itself and 1. You can't say a fetus is not a being simply because it's a fetus.
The cells are human. Now, tell me, are they living? Is it a being?
A living human being?
Not just potential, it is living? Or it's not living? Or is the being part what you consider potential? Does it merely have the potential to be an entity? Is the line where entity and potential entity drawn at self-sustainence? Where is the line drawn? Can you draw the line, clearly and concisely so that it does not include those who have already been birthed?
There was nothing wrong with his analogy. You're just one of the bigots who doesn't like those humans in question to be considered humans. That fits in pretty well with his analogy, too, in case you didn't notice.
Unfortunately, you can't take what you've just learned and repeat it on broadcast. I'd have to say, in just text alone, it'd probably get a R rating.
By reason of the (blah blah) Amendment (I don't remember which... I don't care to look it up right now, maybe the 14th), which extends the First Amendment to apply to all branches of the governing body, which includes school districts, through which we get to the conclusion that teachers may not promote any religious activity in school. Based on that court ruling, they (teachers and members of the school board, as a governing body authorized by the United States) are therefore forbidden from infringing on the freedom of speech, the free exercise of religion etc etc ad nausium.
Yes.
However, it's unlikely that such a thing could ever happen unless such corporations are already depriving other people's rights... or the people sell themselves into a system that does not promote their own growth.
If ever "that one corporation" owns pretty much everything, revolution will follow. In one way or another. If balance and harmony are not found, upheaval is inevitable. A great mob has power to overturn just about anything. And the greater the repression, the sooner and more violent the revolution is. The cycle will begin anew.
Governments define who may be upper class. (Oh, there you go. Bringing class into it again.) Capitalism is the only one where a man can become upper class by his own labor.
Governments that try to abolish classes still as a government body maintain a higher class than the people. The people, when they understand that they are all one class, may become lazy to no diminishment (as they perceive) of their standards of living. But as a whole society, instead of working hard to produce wealth, sink into poverty while feeling content. Contentment is easy when nobody has more than what you have. You can feel well established when your few of possessions are comparable to anyone else's. With that in mind, you also can't become any greater than your neighbor. No room for dreams or aspiration.
But these last hundred years belonged to those who dreamed of becoming more, of having more and of doing more. That is capitalism. You can't have this kind of industrial revolution without the total freedom of personal property. The more taxation and redistribution of wealth, the more you discourage people from becoming a part of this revolution.
Did I rant?
That's usually caused by a large piece of data choking up the output stream, causing the buffer to be filled (with nulls) faster than it's being sent to it's destination. A poor connection can also cause problems with backflow, where your own output is being looped back, possibly in combination with the other end of the connection sending data to your output stream rather than being open to receive on that line.
The question is, does your overflow continue to happen after you have stopped filling the buffer with nulls? If so, the problem may be solved by simply compressing your data to clear the pipes.
Plung3r is a cross-platform utility designed to handle this kind of operation. But it's not inteded for use on personal input streams. It may carry viruses or other harmful trojans/malware/general crap after it's been installed and used.
A couple more points...
When you capitalize the first letter in a noun it becomes a proper name. It becomes more than just the meaning of the word. I could accept the arabic term for "servant" (rough translation, muslim) as long as it's clear you're not trying to convince us that it's the same as the Arabic word "Servant" (Muslim). Likewise for Islam. Make it clear you're using the word for it's actual definition rather than as a proper name.
But if Abraham said "I am the first of submitters" then either Abraham (the prophet) was not a very good prophet or the Quran is wrong when it says Adam and Eve were "submitters" as well?
And you surely don't mean each religion, unless designated to be each among the three. Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Other religions, even other monotheisms are rejected, correct? Since others are rejected, on what basis should one from Judaism or Christianity identify Islam as true? Did Allah ever show proof? Here's an old commandment. On the testimony of two or three witnesses shall a man be condemned to death. Muhammad is only one witness. That would be insufficiant to condemn a man to death by the ancient law, which was given to Moses. Is there a similar commandment in the Quran?
Your faith (Islam) claims foundation upon the faith of Abraham. Islam, as a recognized religion, does not preceed Christianity and Judaism, which both make the same claim. But Islam does claim that it's progression is even from Judaism and Christianity, and that Judaism and Christianity (as a general rule) have fallen away. Right? Therefore, in the era when Islam considered Judaism as pure, it would be equally correct to claim that Adam and Eve were Jewish? And when Christianity was considered pure, it would also be correct to claim that Adam and Eve were Christians? Therefore, Adam & Eve were just as jewish and christian as they were muslim.
That was only one critical aspect of my post. The other critical aspect is that it's dishonest to credit something prior to it's appearance in history. Islam does not appear in history prior to Muhammad.
The Quran commends those "people of the book" (christians and jews) who do not stray from the purity of monotheism or something to that effect, right? Would you also say that those faithful "people of the book" are truly muslims? You'd have to, if you wish to claim that Adam, Even, Abraham and Jesus were muslim. To include one for reason of faithfulness and exclude another despite faithfulness is dishonest.
That's the jist of it.
The toilet.
Does the toilet have an open port? I'll just try to log on remotely and dump a file.
Saves time. This is a paperless transaction.