We all agree with you, sadly our lawyers do not... They often get a percentage after all.
And somehow I have the idea that lawyers and judges went to the same school to study law...
Maybe a little bit of both? I think it's probable that Stephen Hawking meant that some notion of a God would be the entire universe and all it's information and laws (actually i've read somewhere recently that the only scientific way for a God to exist and be all-knowing would be if God was in fact the entire universe since that was the only way to encode all the information in the universe. But I digress). But Stephen Hawking is a smart guy and he knows the resistance scientists sometimes get from religious groups, so he probably worded it ambiguous on purpose so the bible-thumpers can pat themselves on the back and say: 'See, even a scientist like Stephen Hawking is looking for God'. This is a tactic a lot of atheist scientists have employed throughout the ages (for self-preservation, or just not to be ridiculed and shunned), many of whom are still 'claimed' by atheists and religious groups as a result until this day.
I must note that it could also have been the other way around (that he worded it ambiguous to please other scientists and instead meant it literally), but that already was unlikely and given this quote from The Grand Design extremely unprobable.
EAT MORE BABIES! -- These are the demands and sayings of Lee.
This guy really was bat-shit crazy, even more than the PETA and ALF activists... Anything for the animals! But I really loved that last line of his manifesto!:-)
I'm human, a mammal and an animal all at once so fuck you Lee James and every idiot who thinks we have no right to procreate. -- These are the demands and sayings of THD.
I knew about the history of the colors (in fact I have been fighting bullshit color stereotype since I was 4 years old and my favourite sweater was pink and I refused to cave to teasing). The high heels part I did not know, thanks for the info.
My reference to the heels was more along the lines that they're not really practical to walk around with, not that I wouldn't wear them for sexist reasons.:)
*One* is significant. Everyone understands there may be civilian casualties in a war... But when it happens you do not cover it up! If they still do it often means something very dirty is going on, like violating international agreements.
It's par for the course when the guy buys the stuff and the woman doesn't ring back. Like most things, when you reverse the sexes it becomes an act of deviancy. Assange may as well have worn a neon dress and high heels.
The sexual revolution is not over until that statement no longer holds! People always confuse feminism with the sexual revolution but that is just half the story. It's time for men and women to be completely equal in rights while keeping in mind the differences and strong points of both sexes. And to achieve that we first need to get trough the masculist revolution. Although I must admit I am not looking forward to the prospect of walking around on high heels...;)
This is just childish... Trying so hard to find dirt on the founder of an organization is ridiculous. And they forget that 'finding' dirt on Assange in no way means that Wikileaks is *evil* all of the sudden. Even the worst people in history had some good ideas, and Wikileaks is a great idea for people of the world!
That parody site is in no way comparable to the journalistic right to out the wrongdoings of one of the worlds largest governments. When the government hides stuff like the video of the air-strike which was certainly not a matter of national security but a PR problem they lose all credibility with their complaint that Wikileaks harms national security... We all know they worry about their image, not about the informants in Afghanistan, but that was the only valid excuse they could come up with. Hiding the identity of the people leaking these documents that the government does not want you to see is clearly in the interest of protecting these people from attacks like these on Assange since we know the government will play dirty. If the identity of a whistleblower is not protected no-one will leak, and the information can still be suppressed by the government.
Now before you start pointing out that the same applies to the informants you have a valid point, they rightfully deserve protection too... but instead of blaming Wikileaks like the sheep the government hopes we all are remember who wrote down those informants name and address and then failed to protect that information. I am fairly sure the people of Wikileaks, who after all have to do battle with world governments and also have their ass on the line, do a much better job of protecting their 'sensitive' information (damn it feels like fucking Iran when that is considered sensitive). But since the great people from Wikileaks are all about full disclosure of wrongdoings I also think that the moment that Wikileaks pulls stunts that can't stand the light of day they will post the evidence of those acts on the Internet themselves. This parody site totally misses the point: an individual has a right to hide some shit from the government which the government considers 'bad', never the other way around!
You are literally lucky to find one, while this is just a guy with a tablet and an internet connection doing a pretty decent job... To claim it's 'disastrous' is a bit of a hyperbole.
In my experience most people who hate math and geometry (and consequently suck at it) seem to have had inadequate tyrants as math teachers in high school (there is an apparent abundance of those). So a guy who tries to teach in a pleasant way which might stimulate your child(ren) to learn more about the subject is the best possible thing you could want if you want them to learn the joy of learning. Overall Khan seems to do a better than average job teaching, so he provides a great starting point to learn about these subjects. Just compare his site to Wikipedia: it's nowhere near perfect, but it's the best available to quickly learn something about a subject.
Yeah, just another example of a curious human quality. Whenever someone appears to be doing good, they probably aren't. Especially when there is a big organization involved and money/power is at stake. I've always wondered why that is until I read an interesting piece about memetics and evolution of NGO's or whatever group of people doing 'good'. Even if they start with the best intentions it's a matter of evolution that the only groups surviving for many years are the groups that serve their own interest in some way. It's survival of the fittest on a corporate scale, and they compete for the cash of the suckers falling for the Greenpeace-scam that actually believe they help the world by giving money to an organization that issues press releases with the literal text '[FILL IN ALARMIST AND ARMAGEDDONIST FACTOID HERE]'. That is why I generally distrust large NGO's and people claiming to do good things. And this believe is reinforced every time... It's not a distrust in people in general, I believe in the good of man, but I also understand how evolutionary principles can be applied to all kinds of area's and in the long run these will govern the behavior however unintended.
Until I have witnessed proof to the contrary for decades I will assume the Gates Foundation like any other 'good' organization to be the same as the rest: they serve to extend their own power and their prime motive is to keep itself in existence at the cost of anyone else.
Technically they do, they always by definition serve the interests of *some* people. In theory this would be the >50% that elected them (note: also never 100%), but in reality it's mostly a small subset unrelated to the democratic process. This is for example why you have lobbyists giving equally large amounts of money to both candidates. This is not because they try to help the democratic process (election) take place, but to insure their demands are met easier than the demands of others *no matter who wins*, thereby undermining the democratic process to at least some extent.
Disallow lobbying with large chunks of cash and you will have a more democratic process again. Or better yet only allow people to sponsor *one* party of their choosing by a limited amount. But the sad irony there is a strong lobby against such legislation...
Don't even get me started about babies and vagina's, the nasty sexual things (after all a vagina can only be sexual like breasts) some mothers do to their children will make you vomit! No wonder that no human being remembers anything from their first years, all memories from that time are so damaging they have to be repressed!
Scoundrels! Especially those who attempt to convince us they have a *right* to perform this despicable practice in public places in plain view of other innocent darling kids!
"One nation under god, with all people born of immaculate conception and sex is a concept unheard of."
Well, if you remove the 'god' part it would also apply to Slashdot.:)
Slashdot Mirror
All the nausea inducing way...
We all agree with you, sadly our lawyers do not... They often get a percentage after all.
And somehow I have the idea that lawyers and judges went to the same school to study law...
Maybe a little bit of both? I think it's probable that Stephen Hawking meant that some notion of a God would be the entire universe and all it's information and laws (actually i've read somewhere recently that the only scientific way for a God to exist and be all-knowing would be if God was in fact the entire universe since that was the only way to encode all the information in the universe. But I digress). But Stephen Hawking is a smart guy and he knows the resistance scientists sometimes get from religious groups, so he probably worded it ambiguous on purpose so the bible-thumpers can pat themselves on the back and say: 'See, even a scientist like Stephen Hawking is looking for God'. This is a tactic a lot of atheist scientists have employed throughout the ages (for self-preservation, or just not to be ridiculed and shunned), many of whom are still 'claimed' by atheists and religious groups as a result until this day.
I must note that it could also have been the other way around (that he worded it ambiguous to please other scientists and instead meant it literally), but that already was unlikely and given this quote from The Grand Design extremely unprobable.
NOTE: remember the first and only rule about cannibal holocaust... #1 *never* recommend anyone watching cannibal holocaust!
With an earth-sized measuring tape... Duhh.
EAT MORE BABIES! -- These are the demands and sayings of Lee.
:-)
This guy really was bat-shit crazy, even more than the PETA and ALF activists... Anything for the animals!
But I really loved that last line of his manifesto!
I'm human, a mammal and an animal all at once so fuck you Lee James and every idiot who thinks we have no right to procreate. -- These are the demands and sayings of THD.
I knew about the history of the colors (in fact I have been fighting bullshit color stereotype since I was 4 years old and my favourite sweater was pink and I refused to cave to teasing). The high heels part I did not know, thanks for the info. :)
My reference to the heels was more along the lines that they're not really practical to walk around with, not that I wouldn't wear them for sexist reasons.
*One* is significant. Everyone understands there may be civilian casualties in a war... But when it happens you do not cover it up! If they still do it often means something very dirty is going on, like violating international agreements.
Yeah, like he'll tell you that... That's part of the secret! :)
It's par for the course when the guy buys the stuff and the woman doesn't ring back. Like most things, when you reverse the sexes it becomes an act of deviancy. Assange may as well have worn a neon dress and high heels.
The sexual revolution is not over until that statement no longer holds! People always confuse feminism with the sexual revolution but that is just half the story. It's time for men and women to be completely equal in rights while keeping in mind the differences and strong points of both sexes. And to achieve that we first need to get trough the masculist revolution. Although I must admit I am not looking forward to the prospect of walking around on high heels... ;)
This is just childish... Trying so hard to find dirt on the founder of an organization is ridiculous. And they forget that 'finding' dirt on Assange in no way means that Wikileaks is *evil* all of the sudden. Even the worst people in history had some good ideas, and Wikileaks is a great idea for people of the world!
That parody site is in no way comparable to the journalistic right to out the wrongdoings of one of the worlds largest governments. When the government hides stuff like the video of the air-strike which was certainly not a matter of national security but a PR problem they lose all credibility with their complaint that Wikileaks harms national security... We all know they worry about their image, not about the informants in Afghanistan, but that was the only valid excuse they could come up with. Hiding the identity of the people leaking these documents that the government does not want you to see is clearly in the interest of protecting these people from attacks like these on Assange since we know the government will play dirty. If the identity of a whistleblower is not protected no-one will leak, and the information can still be suppressed by the government.
Now before you start pointing out that the same applies to the informants you have a valid point, they rightfully deserve protection too... but instead of blaming Wikileaks like the sheep the government hopes we all are remember who wrote down those informants name and address and then failed to protect that information. I am fairly sure the people of Wikileaks, who after all have to do battle with world governments and also have their ass on the line, do a much better job of protecting their 'sensitive' information (damn it feels like fucking Iran when that is considered sensitive). But since the great people from Wikileaks are all about full disclosure of wrongdoings I also think that the moment that Wikileaks pulls stunts that can't stand the light of day they will post the evidence of those acts on the Internet themselves. This parody site totally misses the point: an individual has a right to hide some shit from the government which the government considers 'bad', never the other way around!
[...] real--and competent--teacher.
You are literally lucky to find one, while this is just a guy with a tablet and an internet connection doing a pretty decent job... To claim it's 'disastrous' is a bit of a hyperbole.
In my experience most people who hate math and geometry (and consequently suck at it) seem to have had inadequate tyrants as math teachers in high school (there is an apparent abundance of those). So a guy who tries to teach in a pleasant way which might stimulate your child(ren) to learn more about the subject is the best possible thing you could want if you want them to learn the joy of learning. Overall Khan seems to do a better than average job teaching, so he provides a great starting point to learn about these subjects. Just compare his site to Wikipedia: it's nowhere near perfect, but it's the best available to quickly learn something about a subject.
Let me guess, you probably work for NASA? ;)
I would take a look, but I'm too afraid I'll kill the cat... And you all know how much Slashdot-geeks love that inter-dimensional pussy.
Yeah, just another example of a curious human quality. Whenever someone appears to be doing good, they probably aren't. Especially when there is a big organization involved and money/power is at stake. I've always wondered why that is until I read an interesting piece about memetics and evolution of NGO's or whatever group of people doing 'good'. Even if they start with the best intentions it's a matter of evolution that the only groups surviving for many years are the groups that serve their own interest in some way. It's survival of the fittest on a corporate scale, and they compete for the cash of the suckers falling for the Greenpeace-scam that actually believe they help the world by giving money to an organization that issues press releases with the literal text '[FILL IN ALARMIST AND ARMAGEDDONIST FACTOID HERE]'. That is why I generally distrust large NGO's and people claiming to do good things. And this believe is reinforced every time... It's not a distrust in people in general, I believe in the good of man, but I also understand how evolutionary principles can be applied to all kinds of area's and in the long run these will govern the behavior however unintended.
Until I have witnessed proof to the contrary for decades I will assume the Gates Foundation like any other 'good' organization to be the same as the rest: they serve to extend their own power and their prime motive is to keep itself in existence at the cost of anyone else.
"Cream of human goodness"? Damn... that made me throw up in my mouth a little.
Man, you're nano-resonating out of control there!
I loved Lik Sang too! :'-(
It's one of the reasons (among many) I have no PlayStation anymore...
Yeah, you wouldn't want the fundamentalist feminists showing up at your house with torches and pitchforks. ;)
Technically they do, they always by definition serve the interests of *some* people. In theory this would be the >50% that elected them (note: also never 100%), but in reality it's mostly a small subset unrelated to the democratic process. This is for example why you have lobbyists giving equally large amounts of money to both candidates. This is not because they try to help the democratic process (election) take place, but to insure their demands are met easier than the demands of others *no matter who wins*, thereby undermining the democratic process to at least some extent.
Disallow lobbying with large chunks of cash and you will have a more democratic process again. Or better yet only allow people to sponsor *one* party of their choosing by a limited amount. But the sad irony there is a strong lobby against such legislation...
Get out of my dystopian future! I'm from 1984...
Don't even get me started about babies and vagina's, the nasty sexual things (after all a vagina can only be sexual like breasts) some mothers do to their children will make you vomit! No wonder that no human being remembers anything from their first years, all memories from that time are so damaging they have to be repressed!
Scoundrels! Especially those who attempt to convince us they have a *right* to perform this despicable practice in public places in plain view of other innocent darling kids!
Reading your post Poe's law comes to mind... Are you just kidding?
"One nation under god, with all people born of immaculate conception and sex is a concept unheard of." :)
Well, if you remove the 'god' part it would also apply to Slashdot.