Eh, sex is part of it, a fantastic part, but not the whole.
"Move on to another one" is the advice I give to "nice guys" who are absolutely fixated on one girl, especially one who clearly isn't interested in them and\or doesn't even know they exist. This is a tremendously common problem.
Even if you're looking for love above all else, why would you waste your time on someone who isn't interested in you?
seriously dude, just pick up the phone, give her a call, and ask her out. It's Summer, go for a walk in the park, picnic, bring some wine if you're old enough.
Don't play the just friends shit either, specify it's a date. If she's not interested, fine, move on to another one.
Back when I was in the Air Force, eliminating "Fraud Waste and Abuse" were popular buzzwords for about a year or two. It was a federal government-wide initiative to eliminate, well, Fraud Waste and Abuse. No-one could ever really define (except in the broadest terms) what that really meant, but it made them feel like they were doing something to reduce government spending.
It's entirely possible all the numbers cited in that article were pulled wholesale out of someone's ass.
All of these technical challenges are why the FAA is conducting a 2-year research and development project to figure out solutions to those technical problems.
That's.. The point of the article, UAV's aren't ready yet, but they will be some day, assuming we put in the research and development. Which we are.
Israel is not a party to or signatory of the Hague convention of 1907, your citation is meaningless.
Similarly, the Charter of the Nuremberg trials isn't international law... It specifically pertained to the aftermath of World War II, and was signed by the United States, Great Britain, France, and Russia, it's not applicable to the current situation, and isn't even "binding international law" in any situation.
Learn what the hell you're talking about instead of just blindly parroting someone else.
Legal authority and moral authority are two very different things.
Desmond Tutu doesn't have any legal authority.
The head of the UNRWA himself said he's not representing a political organization when he spoke.
Similarly, the United Nations, as a whole, doesn't have any legal authority over Israel or international affairs in general other than what is authorized by the Security Council. To say any action at all is "Illegal under international law" is to show you have no idea what you're talking about. There is no such thing as international law, merely a piecemeal set of treaties and agreements that Israel has sole discretion in enforcing and obeying within Israel's sovereign borders.
GP is a Troll, so don't mistake this for advocating his point of view.
I'm interested in the idea that you think there are cultures out there in the world that aren't organized around greed, selfishness, and making money. Where in the the world does such a thing exist? I'll grant you small, isolated communities - but any system large enough to have an economy at all revolves around greed and selfishness.
Eh, it's not (or shouldn't be) so much you're changing your original hypothesis to fit the data. It's the mere fact that your experiment proved your hypothesis to be incorrect is, in fact, more data. Ideally, you would then revise your hypothesis to fit the new evidence and conduct another experiment to verify your new hypothesis is correct.
People sometimes run out of time or money and have to fudge out that last bit, which causes problems.
Eh, civil cases don't use the "beyond a reasonable doubt" requirement. The bar is a little lower, and besides, you'd still bankrupt yourself on lawyer fees fighting the good fight.
Well, yeah. If the cost of fighting piracy (legal fees, lobbying expenses, programming time spent on DRM, and intangible things like the PR hit from this stuff) - exceeds the benefits of fighting piracy, then it's a better solution to just allow piracy.
The Gross revenue of the Hurt Locker was ~40 million. Revenue lost to 5,000 individuals downloading the movie (assuming each download represents a lost sale, and assuming ~$40 for a DVD of the movie rather than a ticket sale, BOTH very generous assumptions), you're looking at only ~$200,000 in lost revenue.
The production company will spend more on legal fees to conduct 5,000 lawsuits then that.
This doesn't necessarily justify file piracy (It's still wrong to do) - but I've never met a person whose stated reason for not using bittorrent was "I'm afraid of getting sued."
For Petty Theft? With a good attorney, you're looking at paying a fine - the amount depends on the judge and jurisdiction, but certainly less than 2 million - Maybe a few months jail time if you don't have the money for a good lawyer.
Hell, you came in to check what I've written in response to you. There's a very clear disconnect between what you're saying and what you're actually doing.
This is just a symptom of the same problem I've been trying to hammer into you all along, if you just say "X is the case, but I don't have to justify it and back it up" - whether 'X' is "The Civil war wasn't about slavery" or "I'm ignoring you" or "I don't care" or "I'm going to make something of myself." Then the statement is worthless. It's a fundamental error in the way you think.
Don't just say you're going to do something, do it.
Everything I've written is my opinion, including the topics you've singled out as things you care about. Except you don't care about my opinion. Think about that for a while.
Yes, I'm a little hypocritical here, I openly admitted I'm here because I like to poke fun at you for the lulz, it's no secret.
From what you've been telling me so far, you don't want to be considered a troll, even though you're trolling. If you don't want to be one, any similarities between my writing and your own should be taken as a bad sign.
What exactly do you think we're arguing about here?
The point was that the Civil war was about Slavery (there were other factors certainly, but Slavery was a pretty big one) - and it's justified by the leader of the South directly stating his state was seceding from the Union because of the issue of slavery, then the point is made.
The soundness of his Jefferson Davies' argument isn't even relevant.
If you don't care about something on the internet, don't write several paragraphs about why you don't care. No matter how eloquently you make your point, you're contradicting yourself.
If someone is out of line you tell them they're behaving out of line - otherwise they'll never get better. This is true in the real world, and online.
What? No, Jefferson Davies was saying in this speech that if the founding fathers were going to abolish slavery, they would have done it. He did not say that the founding fathers should have abolished slavery, and indeed, left congress after this speech, and led the south to secede over the issue.
Slashdot Mirror
Eh, sex is part of it, a fantastic part, but not the whole.
"Move on to another one" is the advice I give to "nice guys" who are absolutely fixated on one girl, especially one who clearly isn't interested in them and\or doesn't even know they exist. This is a tremendously common problem.
Even if you're looking for love above all else, why would you waste your time on someone who isn't interested in you?
seriously dude, just pick up the phone, give her a call, and ask her out. It's Summer, go for a walk in the park, picnic, bring some wine if you're old enough.
Don't play the just friends shit either, specify it's a date. If she's not interested, fine, move on to another one.
you choose to get a tattoo.
Barring Michael Jackson, you don't get to choose being black, white, young, old, etc.
Back when I was in the Air Force, eliminating "Fraud Waste and Abuse" were popular buzzwords for about a year or two. It was a federal government-wide initiative to eliminate, well, Fraud Waste and Abuse. No-one could ever really define (except in the broadest terms) what that really meant, but it made them feel like they were doing something to reduce government spending.
It's entirely possible all the numbers cited in that article were pulled wholesale out of someone's ass.
and then you'd be shot, and nobody would be surprised.
All of these technical challenges are why the FAA is conducting a 2-year research and development project to figure out solutions to those technical problems.
That's.. The point of the article, UAV's aren't ready yet, but they will be some day, assuming we put in the research and development. Which we are.
Ah, but the EU is not a Country.
You could make the argument that the EU is a nation, but gp and ggp seem to be confused as to what they're talking about on that front.
Israel is not a party to or signatory of the Hague convention of 1907, your citation is meaningless.
Similarly, the Charter of the Nuremberg trials isn't international law... It specifically pertained to the aftermath of World War II, and was signed by the United States, Great Britain, France, and Russia, it's not applicable to the current situation, and isn't even "binding international law" in any situation.
Learn what the hell you're talking about instead of just blindly parroting someone else.
Legal authority and moral authority are two very different things.
Desmond Tutu doesn't have any legal authority.
The head of the UNRWA himself said he's not representing a political organization when he spoke.
Similarly, the United Nations, as a whole, doesn't have any legal authority over Israel or international affairs in general other than what is authorized by the Security Council. To say any action at all is "Illegal under international law" is to show you have no idea what you're talking about. There is no such thing as international law, merely a piecemeal set of treaties and agreements that Israel has sole discretion in enforcing and obeying within Israel's sovereign borders.
Dude, have you ever tried to get a cup of coffee in Salt Lake City? Place is run by barbarians!
GP is a Troll, so don't mistake this for advocating his point of view.
I'm interested in the idea that you think there are cultures out there in the world that aren't organized around greed, selfishness, and making money. Where in the the world does such a thing exist? I'll grant you small, isolated communities - but any system large enough to have an economy at all revolves around greed and selfishness.
Eh, it's not (or shouldn't be) so much you're changing your original hypothesis to fit the data. It's the mere fact that your experiment proved your hypothesis to be incorrect is, in fact, more data. Ideally, you would then revise your hypothesis to fit the new evidence and conduct another experiment to verify your new hypothesis is correct.
People sometimes run out of time or money and have to fudge out that last bit, which causes problems.
sloppiness on my part :P
You still file-share, which is what the various media companies are trying to scare you away from doing.
Eh, civil cases don't use the "beyond a reasonable doubt" requirement. The bar is a little lower, and besides, you'd still bankrupt yourself on lawyer fees fighting the good fight.
Well, yeah. If the cost of fighting piracy (legal fees, lobbying expenses, programming time spent on DRM, and intangible things like the PR hit from this stuff) - exceeds the benefits of fighting piracy, then it's a better solution to just allow piracy.
The Gross revenue of the Hurt Locker was ~40 million. Revenue lost to 5,000 individuals downloading the movie (assuming each download represents a lost sale, and assuming ~$40 for a DVD of the movie rather than a ticket sale, BOTH very generous assumptions), you're looking at only ~$200,000 in lost revenue.
The production company will spend more on legal fees to conduct 5,000 lawsuits then that.
This doesn't necessarily justify file piracy (It's still wrong to do) - but I've never met a person whose stated reason for not using bittorrent was "I'm afraid of getting sued."
For Petty Theft? With a good attorney, you're looking at paying a fine - the amount depends on the judge and jurisdiction, but certainly less than 2 million - Maybe a few months jail time if you don't have the money for a good lawyer.
if you had said, "I beat my wife regularly" and then I asked, "When did you stop beating your wife" then your analogy might hold water.
You've got this bizarre obsession with being "right" even in impossible circumstances of your own construction. Why is that?
But... You're not ignoring me. Still.
Hell, you came in to check what I've written in response to you. There's a very clear disconnect between what you're saying and what you're actually doing.
This is just a symptom of the same problem I've been trying to hammer into you all along, if you just say "X is the case, but I don't have to justify it and back it up" - whether 'X' is "The Civil war wasn't about slavery" or "I'm ignoring you" or "I don't care" or "I'm going to make something of myself." Then the statement is worthless. It's a fundamental error in the way you think.
Don't just say you're going to do something, do it.
Don't tell me you're ignoring me, ignore me
You're really bad at this, but learning your lesson is for your own good. Seriously.
I understand what you're trying to say...
You're just wrong.
Everything I've written is my opinion, including the topics you've singled out as things you care about. Except you don't care about my opinion. Think about that for a while.
Yes, I'm a little hypocritical here, I openly admitted I'm here because I like to poke fun at you for the lulz, it's no secret.
From what you've been telling me so far, you don't want to be considered a troll, even though you're trolling. If you don't want to be one, any similarities between my writing and your own should be taken as a bad sign.
What exactly do you think we're arguing about here?
The point was that the Civil war was about Slavery (there were other factors certainly, but Slavery was a pretty big one) - and it's justified by the leader of the South directly stating his state was seceding from the Union because of the issue of slavery, then the point is made.
The soundness of his Jefferson Davies' argument isn't even relevant.
Because ridiculing people who take themselves seriously is, in fact, an effective tactic to make them go away.
Protip:
If you don't care about something on the internet, don't write several paragraphs about why you don't care. No matter how eloquently you make your point, you're contradicting yourself.
If someone is out of line you tell them they're behaving out of line - otherwise they'll never get better. This is true in the real world, and online.
What? No, Jefferson Davies was saying in this speech that if the founding fathers were going to abolish slavery, they would have done it. He did not say that the founding fathers should have abolished slavery, and indeed, left congress after this speech, and led the south to secede over the issue.
You're.. You're just too stupid for words.