Actually we were experimenting with it, but then I think... during the Geneva convention they decided it should be illegal to use natural phenomena (man made hurricanes, earthquakes, and the like) as weapons.
For some reason attempting to blow hurricanes apart fell under this as something they didn't want us to do.
Though, they were having good luck I hear with blowing bombs up over the hurricanes... it disrupted the air pressures within the hurricane... I forget how though.
Okay, I was a bit harsh. But its pretty sickening how people just take random stabs at people ("for a second I thought he took grammer lessons from G-dub"(paraphrased)).
Besides, your post can barely be considered constructive. All it did was tell us a standard word in the standard vocabulary is in fact a real word.
"news flash, informational is in fact a word!"
The terminology is that of Sartre's with who I disagree, but defined somethings that are suited to this subject.
A "being-for-itself" is a being who is always trying to attain the actualization of a potency with which to define itself. Humans are the only being we know of that attempts to define himself.
In contrast a "being-in-itself" is one which *is* defined by nature. A rat is a rat, a triangle is a triangle, a corpse is a corpse.
Beings-for-themselves are in a constant identity crisis, beings-in-themselves are basically inanimate.
As a side note, I believe in a "being-in-and-of-itself" which would be God, who is basically a marriage of "being-for-itself" and "being-in-itself", in a theological train of thought this could help to explain the Trinity, but thats not what this is about.
Closing, as stated, my terms are those which are studied in any basic philosophy course, philosophy of course is the science of ethics/morals, and that is the subject of debate in TFA. Pick up any basic book on Jean-Paul Sartre or Existentialism and you will find them easily.
I answered that in points 1 and 2, I'll paraphrase what I was saying in my points.
Both children are advancing towards a realization of actuality, dead child towards death, unborn child towards life. Now all that they're doing is taking life from a living child and givin it to a dead child. Without the Living child's consent much less!
Secondly, this sounds cold, but it should be considered. What is accomplished by giving life to someone who is gonna sit and most likely live off government aid, or some sorta lawsuit money or *something*; have some kind of problem at the least. And taking life from a potentially next great contributer to the world? I'm not saying the sick shild can't, but it is very un likely he will ever be totally normal. Where as the healthy child(fetus, whatever, they mean the same thing literally anyway) has a very likely chance to be a healthy, successful person with the right raising.
It is an argument of practicality rather than emotion, which is what the masses need to look at in any given case.
I'm not gonna lie and say "this is totally wrong!" but I still don't think it is right.
My point:
The fetus is not a being-in-itself, it is enroute, developing into a human. it has the potentiality of humanity but not an actual humanity, so thus it is a being-for-itself. Now only humans are being-for-itself; so there is a contradiction here.
The dying child is a human, being-for-itself, it has the potentiality of a dead being, but the actuality of an alive being. All being strive become a being-in-itself, death is this state for this child. Thus the child dying will reach it's goal of life by dying.
Thus I deduce two points:
1) Doing nothing places each being into their respective roles. Granted once the first child is human they will gain another potentiality as a side-effect of being-for-itself. But each child is in their logical, unaltered, natural states.
2) Is anything accomplished by exchanging roles? No. Of course parents are going to say otherwise, but they are bias.
on a second note, I envy the dying child. From a philisophical point of view they are the most lucky of us.
Why the heck is this in Hardware? o.0 'cause they used metal to make the claw?
For a second I thought there was some new piece of hardware that people thought could be used to disembowle people.
The Ipod/mp3 player targets the audiophile. The PDA targets... everyone, but it really offers no singular feature.
So with the ipod, you basically have a piercing sort of effect, where you hit a group, and you hit them damn hard (no CDs, light, easy to use). You penetrate a part of the market and word of mouth takes it from there.
PDA seems more of a blugeoning type strategy, where if you actually win over any part of the market its more because you hit a soft-spot less than you really hit on what people want.
Lastly, technology is a predominantly male field. They see somethign they want that does somethign they want. They get it. Then eventually they have everythign they need and they want to combine it. We don't really think "Well... I want an MP3 player... what else do I want it to do? I want an MP3 player that sends emails!" nah.. not your average train of thought.
As my good friend once points out to me "so.. since your cell phone has a clock on it.. does that mean your clock makes a call, or your phone tells time?"
its all in marketing.
These people think they're scamming the "rich american", when I bet that more often than not they're scamming some old person who lives off medicare and drives across the border to Canada to get their medication, or some poor guy who's retarded and subsceptible to the weakest of scamming tries.
In which case, they (the victim) isn't exactly guilty of greed as much as being gullible.
The phrase "stealing candy from a baby" comes to mind.
people often ignore there are many types of asbestos, and only a when used incorrectly, or without the proper precautions is it truely harmful.
I'd like to know what form of asbestos they are talking about.
Blue Asbestos (crocidolite) == bad (no longer used)
White Asbestos (chrysotile) != bad (used until the 1980s when enviromental wackos tried to ban in one of their many over generalized 'missions')
Should the US move its root servers? Any other country and set up it's own. The only reason they don't is... I don't know why. They're just stupid I guess. If they did that then I'm sure corperate/user pressure would force them to peer with eachother.
I vote bomb the next UN meeting. Fuck the world, they don't want us, we don't need them.
It's a good thing I'm not president. Be thankful you pansies.
How can you post that and be taken seriously?
"hur hur, I thought it wasn't a word and was like 'OMG what an Idyot!' then I luked it up... and it was....
It is the best in an ideal world, which is also the only world in which a direct democracy would work. The fact is, anything would work in an ideal world. But we don't have one. Thus a democracy won't work, and a dictatorship won't work. (yes I know the logic in that arguement has alot of loose end, shush.)
Right, and the "tyranny of the majority" is an unavoidable side-effect of a democracy, just as "tyranny of the state" is an unavoidable side-effect of a dictatorship. (unless you live in an ideal world, which we don't.)
Yes, there is something in direct democracy that prevents you from implimenting such a system. And that is its definition. You can't do that, because if you do it is no longer a direct democracy.
True, but if you're going to be an idealist then a dictatorship would be best.
The fact is you can't trust people, so no government is perfect. Besides, I'd rather have the power spread out across the nation via several representative, than concentrated in California, New York, and New Jersey.
Republics are in place to equal out the election process.
Second, no direct democracy can ever stand for long because people are granted too much power. I mean really "I vote no one has to work and that we should all get a paycheck of N dollars a week!".
I really don't see the problem with businesses doing this type of thing.
If you run a R/L business you keep in mind what certain customers like. Its a bsic principle of sales. Cookies, and IP-logging is just the online way of doing this.
Slashdot Mirror
Screw colorblindness! I want dog-vision!
Kitty Hawk, December 17, 1903, Wright Brothers?
Actually we were experimenting with it, but then I think... during the Geneva convention they decided it should be illegal to use natural phenomena (man made hurricanes, earthquakes, and the like) as weapons.
For some reason attempting to blow hurricanes apart fell under this as something they didn't want us to do.
Though, they were having good luck I hear with blowing bombs up over the hurricanes... it disrupted the air pressures within the hurricane... I forget how though.
Fine, but we invented the nuke, airplane, and car.
We'll see who wins a war with those odds.
Okay, I was a bit harsh. But its pretty sickening how people just take random stabs at people ("for a second I thought he took grammer lessons from G-dub"(paraphrased)).
Besides, your post can barely be considered constructive. All it did was tell us a standard word in the standard vocabulary is in fact a real word.
"news flash, informational is in fact a word!"
The terminology is that of Sartre's with who I disagree, but defined somethings that are suited to this subject.
A "being-for-itself" is a being who is always trying to attain the actualization of a potency with which to define itself. Humans are the only being we know of that attempts to define himself.
In contrast a "being-in-itself" is one which *is* defined by nature. A rat is a rat, a triangle is a triangle, a corpse is a corpse.
Beings-for-themselves are in a constant identity crisis, beings-in-themselves are basically inanimate.
As a side note, I believe in a "being-in-and-of-itself" which would be God, who is basically a marriage of "being-for-itself" and "being-in-itself", in a theological train of thought this could help to explain the Trinity, but thats not what this is about.
Closing, as stated, my terms are those which are studied in any basic philosophy course, philosophy of course is the science of ethics/morals, and that is the subject of debate in TFA. Pick up any basic book on Jean-Paul Sartre or Existentialism and you will find them easily.
I answered that in points 1 and 2, I'll paraphrase what I was saying in my points.
Both children are advancing towards a realization of actuality, dead child towards death, unborn child towards life. Now all that they're doing is taking life from a living child and givin it to a dead child. Without the Living child's consent much less!
Secondly, this sounds cold, but it should be considered. What is accomplished by giving life to someone who is gonna sit and most likely live off government aid, or some sorta lawsuit money or *something*; have some kind of problem at the least. And taking life from a potentially next great contributer to the world? I'm not saying the sick shild can't, but it is very un likely he will ever be totally normal. Where as the healthy child(fetus, whatever, they mean the same thing literally anyway) has a very likely chance to be a healthy, successful person with the right raising.
It is an argument of practicality rather than emotion, which is what the masses need to look at in any given case.
Very very interesting... I'm not exactly sure what to think right now.
I'm not gonna lie and say "this is totally wrong!" but I still don't think it is right.
My point:
The fetus is not a being-in-itself, it is enroute, developing into a human. it has the potentiality of humanity but not an actual humanity, so thus it is a being-for-itself. Now only humans are being-for-itself; so there is a contradiction here.
The dying child is a human, being-for-itself, it has the potentiality of a dead being, but the actuality of an alive being. All being strive become a being-in-itself, death is this state for this child. Thus the child dying will reach it's goal of life by dying.
Thus I deduce two points:
1) Doing nothing places each being into their respective roles. Granted once the first child is human they will gain another potentiality as a side-effect of being-for-itself. But each child is in their logical, unaltered, natural states.
2) Is anything accomplished by exchanging roles? No. Of course parents are going to say otherwise, but they are bias.
on a second note, I envy the dying child. From a philisophical point of view they are the most lucky of us.
But why fetal cells? That is the pro-lifers' question.
Why the heck is this in Hardware? o.0 'cause they used metal to make the claw? For a second I thought there was some new piece of hardware that people thought could be used to disembowle people.
The Ipod/mp3 player targets the audiophile. The PDA targets... everyone, but it really offers no singular feature.
So with the ipod, you basically have a piercing sort of effect, where you hit a group, and you hit them damn hard (no CDs, light, easy to use). You penetrate a part of the market and word of mouth takes it from there.
PDA seems more of a blugeoning type strategy, where if you actually win over any part of the market its more because you hit a soft-spot less than you really hit on what people want.
Lastly, technology is a predominantly male field. They see somethign they want that does somethign they want. They get it. Then eventually they have everythign they need and they want to combine it. We don't really think "Well... I want an MP3 player... what else do I want it to do? I want an MP3 player that sends emails!" nah.. not your average train of thought.
As my good friend once points out to me "so.. since your cell phone has a clock on it.. does that mean your clock makes a call, or your phone tells time?"
its all in marketing.
These people think they're scamming the "rich american", when I bet that more often than not they're scamming some old person who lives off medicare and drives across the border to Canada to get their medication, or some poor guy who's retarded and subsceptible to the weakest of scamming tries.
In which case, they (the victim) isn't exactly guilty of greed as much as being gullible.
The phrase "stealing candy from a baby" comes to mind.
Wonder how long until we have nanocities.
I hope you know I'm holding you to journalistic standards for posting that wikipedia url!
people often ignore there are many types of asbestos, and only a when used incorrectly, or without the proper precautions is it truely harmful.
I'd like to know what form of asbestos they are talking about.
Blue Asbestos (crocidolite) == bad (no longer used) White Asbestos (chrysotile) != bad (used until the 1980s when enviromental wackos tried to ban in one of their many over generalized 'missions')
Should the US move its root servers? Any other country and set up it's own. The only reason they don't is... I don't know why. They're just stupid I guess. If they did that then I'm sure corperate/user pressure would force them to peer with eachother.
I vote bomb the next UN meeting. Fuck the world, they don't want us, we don't need them.
It's a good thing I'm not president. Be thankful you pansies.
Still bitter over an election almost 7 years ago?
Regardless, if you still hold that his first election is null doesn't that give him the right to run a third time?
Regardless he won the national vote last time, that is your definition of democracy isn't it?
fucking moron.
You really are damaged in some way aren't you?
How can you post that and be taken seriously?
"hur hur, I thought it wasn't a word and was like 'OMG what an Idyot!' then I luked it up... and it was....
Hes styll stupid! *cool* *cool*"
It is the best in an ideal world, which is also the only world in which a direct democracy would work. The fact is, anything would work in an ideal world. But we don't have one. Thus a democracy won't work, and a dictatorship won't work. (yes I know the logic in that arguement has alot of loose end, shush.)
Right, and the "tyranny of the majority" is an unavoidable side-effect of a democracy, just as "tyranny of the state" is an unavoidable side-effect of a dictatorship. (unless you live in an ideal world, which we don't.)
Yes, there is something in direct democracy that prevents you from implimenting such a system. And that is its definition. You can't do that, because if you do it is no longer a direct democracy.
True, but if you're going to be an idealist then a dictatorship would be best.
The fact is you can't trust people, so no government is perfect. Besides, I'd rather have the power spread out across the nation via several representative, than concentrated in California, New York, and New Jersey.
Horrible, horrible idea
Republics are in place to equal out the election process.
Second, no direct democracy can ever stand for long because people are granted too much power. I mean really "I vote no one has to work and that we should all get a paycheck of N dollars a week!".
Can you say hello communism?
I really don't see the problem with businesses doing this type of thing.
If you run a R/L business you keep in mind what certain customers like. Its a bsic principle of sales. Cookies, and IP-logging is just the online way of doing this.
The great thing about standards is there are so many to choose from!
I'm in love! Its amazing, I entered the Shins, and yeah they played a few shins songs, but the songs they recommended, are just what I like.
And hey, $36 a year, is only $3 a month... support local musicians, and get get great recommendations... I just wish they could sell you the song....