Fair enough. The tenor of "If you think there's nothing wrong with..." comes across as being somewhat accusatory though, while strictly speaking your message could be interpreted as the wife being the one with issues, the wording makes it seem more like it's the husbands issue for not thinking there's something wrong with upsetting his wife.
Here is a non-authoritative and certainly not comprehensive list of things that may upset ones wife, depending on the wife in question:
Working overtime. Comes in many flavors, such as "You don't have enough time for me!" and "You're cheating on me and claiming you're working late to cover it up!" Not getting enough hours at work. Flavors for this range from "You aren't bringing in enough money" to "I have no time to myself!" -I've personally witnessed, though not experienced firsthand, the same wife complaining about both of these first two lines- in at least one case, 'working too much' was applied to a week where the husband worked less hours than a 'not working enough' week. Going fishing with your friends. Sometimes, but not always justified. Wanting a few minutes to unwind in front of the tv, a newspaper, a game, etc. after work instead of immediately cooking dinner. (Yes, really, and this was from wife who did not have a job herself). Spending too much money. Not spending enough money (on her). Having to go to the laundromat because the washing machine is on the fritz. Spending money to fix said washing machine to alleviate the last compleint.
My point is, doing things that upset one's wife is unavoidable unless one does not have a wife. While many cases of the wife getting upset are justified, just as many of them have no apparent rhyme or reason, and also have a noted lack of repeatability, with the same actions being pleasing at one time and upsetting at another.
If you really believe what you're saying here, I find it unlikely that you've ever had a serious relationship with a woman.
Beating up drug users is a drug crime now? So is beating up a rapist a sex crime? How about beating up an embezzler, is that white collar crime?
A separate crime with the caveat '... to a drug user' is about as valid as a separate patent with the caveat '... on the internet' or '... on a computer.'
Is it a crime? Sure. But he's certainly not pushing drugs, which was my point:P
Off the record, while I of course would never take part in such an assault myself, if I were to witness a bunch of drug dealers/users getting the crap beat out of them, I have a feeling I'd forget all the details by the time the police questioned me.
Murder and car theft, sure, but if memory serves, in San Andreas CJ doesn't push drugs at any point. He actively works to take out drug dealers in several missions, in fact.
Some of his fellow gang members seem to have a penchant for ganja, but when CJ is offered some he always declines.
I think the real story is that you're an alien from a planet on which several days can occur in the span of 24 earth hours. That teaser went up just a day ahead of the announcement.
But right here on earth, FOUR DAYS occur within the span of 24 earth hours! Don't tell me you aren't up to speed with TIME CUBE THEORY!
Except this DOES actually matter to those who don't play the game.
I'll give you two reason. 1) Legal 2) Precedent
Case law has a way of making a case one ordinarily would not care about in the slightest suddenly applicable to something that DIRECTLY affects said individual...
I think he strikes a good point. There is a lot of theory as to the nature of time, and evidence has suggested that time isn't necessarily linear. Certainly, data suggests that time itself is subject to external factors, such as theories regarding time in relation to relativistic velocities and/or massive objects ie. black holes.
Despite this, our consciousness is limited to any given moment in time; the 'present.' We are able to recall things we have witnessed in the past in varying levels of detail, but we are still only actually aware (in terms of perception) of the present. Modelling time as a fourth dimension, we are said to be able to move freely on two axis, have limited mobility vertically, and move forward along the time axis in what is, ostensibly, a linear rate (1 second per second). Even that is questionable, as subjective perception of time varies from individual to individual, and indeed varies from point to point with any given individual.
If a hypothetical God is omnipotent and omniscient, wouldn't that by definition remove those restrictions from said entity? I would say that being able to actively perceive any given point in time (past, present, or future) would essentially be a requirement for true omniscience. By that same token, I would presume omnipotence would also imply no restrictions in terms of ability to freely "move" along the time axis as well.
Assuming time is linear, and progresses along a straight line, the argument is that free will does not exist because the outcome is predestined. Is that necessarily true though? Does an external 3rd party who already knows what you're going to decide before you decide it remove that choice from you? I suppose it depends on choice.
But what about the 'many worlds' model? The case where at instances where a choice is made, or there is a "random" chance of any given occurence, all of the possibilities occur, but in different universes (so to speak). In this case, I would presume that an omnipotent and omniscient being would be capable of perceiving all possible futures from any given point.
This kind of thing could be argued for years... your statements make presumptions regarding the nature of time that there isn't any hard data or evidence to back up. Not just that, but to assume that a theory is untrue when there is no evidence to either support or disprove it makes the presumption that all possible data on the matter is both available and correctly interpreted, which I see no evidence for, and in fact see a good deal of evidence to the contrary.
While on the God subject- that question "If God is all powerful, can he create a rock so massive that he cannot lift it" is a popular one for the less educated atheist philosopher. The answer is simple- yes. If said rock was massive enough that the center of gravity for the entire universe was contained within its mass, then it could not be "lifted" by definition.
So, the new Indian OS can make itself 10 times more secure than Windows with the simple expedient of not allowing users to install random shit off the internet.
Your post actually demonstrates that there IS something fundamentally wrong with Windows.
Isn't there some kind of "eye fone" or something to that effect that does just that? I may be misremembering, I can't claim to be infallible after all. Pretty sure that whatever it was has been known to catch a lot of flak on slashdot specifically for locking functionality away from users...
I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that they are referring to Mach 3 at STP. I don't know how much measuring has been done of sound propagation at various speeds, so one would presume they're comparing velocity to sound at surface conditions...
You're right, The Sims hasn't been any kind of success, and there isn't any large following of that series either because of it. Nobody likes that shit! Other games that simulate "real life" activities fail just as horribly- Nobody plays, say, Madden, or Skate, because you can play football or go skateboarding in real life!
Slashdot Mirror
You think Dihydrogen Monoxide is bad? Hydrogen Hydroxide has all these dangers and more, and is JUST as common as Dihydrogen Monoxide!
This. Pre-made potato chips and microwave popcorn are rip-offs only if your time and effort are assumed to be free.
Fair enough. The tenor of "If you think there's nothing wrong with..." comes across as being somewhat accusatory though, while strictly speaking your message could be interpreted as the wife being the one with issues, the wording makes it seem more like it's the husbands issue for not thinking there's something wrong with upsetting his wife.
Guess I jumped to conclusions a bit.
Here is a non-authoritative and certainly not comprehensive list of things that may upset ones wife, depending on the wife in question:
Working overtime. Comes in many flavors, such as "You don't have enough time for me!" and "You're cheating on me and claiming you're working late to cover it up!"
Not getting enough hours at work. Flavors for this range from "You aren't bringing in enough money" to "I have no time to myself!"
-I've personally witnessed, though not experienced firsthand, the same wife complaining about both of these first two lines- in at least one case, 'working too much' was applied to a week where the husband worked less hours than a 'not working enough' week.
Going fishing with your friends. Sometimes, but not always justified.
Wanting a few minutes to unwind in front of the tv, a newspaper, a game, etc. after work instead of immediately cooking dinner. (Yes, really, and this was from wife who did not have a job herself).
Spending too much money.
Not spending enough money (on her).
Having to go to the laundromat because the washing machine is on the fritz.
Spending money to fix said washing machine to alleviate the last compleint.
My point is, doing things that upset one's wife is unavoidable unless one does not have a wife. While many cases of the wife getting upset are justified, just as many of them have no apparent rhyme or reason, and also have a noted lack of repeatability, with the same actions being pleasing at one time and upsetting at another.
If you really believe what you're saying here, I find it unlikely that you've ever had a serious relationship with a woman.
Beating up drug users is a drug crime now? So is beating up a rapist a sex crime? How about beating up an embezzler, is that white collar crime?
:P
A separate crime with the caveat '... to a drug user' is about as valid as a separate patent with the caveat '... on the internet' or '... on a computer.'
Is it a crime? Sure. But he's certainly not pushing drugs, which was my point
Off the record, while I of course would never take part in such an assault myself, if I were to witness a bunch of drug dealers/users getting the crap beat out of them, I have a feeling I'd forget all the details by the time the police questioned me.
Murder and car theft, sure, but if memory serves, in San Andreas CJ doesn't push drugs at any point. He actively works to take out drug dealers in several missions, in fact.
Some of his fellow gang members seem to have a penchant for ganja, but when CJ is offered some he always declines.
Implying someone is a virgin? On slashdot?
...
Really???
If you're so scrawny/short that you don't even hit 150, I think your standards are a little... high.
Yes. And scatter them across the counter, preferably letting some fall on the floor, so they have to pick up each individual penny.
Pennies. Preferably dirty ones. And not rolled, bring them in plastic grocery bags.
Vagina Dentata! What a terrible phrase...
Vagina Dentata! It'll make you crazed...
It means fuckin teeth, when you're going to get laid...
Oh thank God for thee,
Pornography...
Vagina Dentata!
I think the real story is that you're an alien from a planet on which several days can occur in the span of 24 earth hours. That teaser went up just a day ahead of the announcement.
But right here on earth, FOUR DAYS occur within the span of 24 earth hours! Don't tell me you aren't up to speed with TIME CUBE THEORY!
Our base is under attack. Low Power. Silos Needed.
Or reasons. Those work too.
Except this DOES actually matter to those who don't play the game.
I'll give you two reason.
1) Legal
2) Precedent
Case law has a way of making a case one ordinarily would not care about in the slightest suddenly applicable to something that DIRECTLY affects said individual...
HOw Google Got Legally Ensnared?
I think he strikes a good point. There is a lot of theory as to the nature of time, and evidence has suggested that time isn't necessarily linear. Certainly, data suggests that time itself is subject to external factors, such as theories regarding time in relation to relativistic velocities and/or massive objects ie. black holes.
Despite this, our consciousness is limited to any given moment in time; the 'present.' We are able to recall things we have witnessed in the past in varying levels of detail, but we are still only actually aware (in terms of perception) of the present. Modelling time as a fourth dimension, we are said to be able to move freely on two axis, have limited mobility vertically, and move forward along the time axis in what is, ostensibly, a linear rate (1 second per second). Even that is questionable, as subjective perception of time varies from individual to individual, and indeed varies from point to point with any given individual.
If a hypothetical God is omnipotent and omniscient, wouldn't that by definition remove those restrictions from said entity? I would say that being able to actively perceive any given point in time (past, present, or future) would essentially be a requirement for true omniscience. By that same token, I would presume omnipotence would also imply no restrictions in terms of ability to freely "move" along the time axis as well.
Assuming time is linear, and progresses along a straight line, the argument is that free will does not exist because the outcome is predestined. Is that necessarily true though? Does an external 3rd party who already knows what you're going to decide before you decide it remove that choice from you? I suppose it depends on choice.
But what about the 'many worlds' model? The case where at instances where a choice is made, or there is a "random" chance of any given occurence, all of the possibilities occur, but in different universes (so to speak). In this case, I would presume that an omnipotent and omniscient being would be capable of perceiving all possible futures from any given point.
This kind of thing could be argued for years... your statements make presumptions regarding the nature of time that there isn't any hard data or evidence to back up. Not just that, but to assume that a theory is untrue when there is no evidence to either support or disprove it makes the presumption that all possible data on the matter is both available and correctly interpreted, which I see no evidence for, and in fact see a good deal of evidence to the contrary.
While on the God subject- that question "If God is all powerful, can he create a rock so massive that he cannot lift it" is a popular one for the less educated atheist philosopher. The answer is simple- yes. If said rock was massive enough that the center of gravity for the entire universe was contained within its mass, then it could not be "lifted" by definition.
So, the new Indian OS can make itself 10 times more secure than Windows with the simple expedient of not allowing users to install random shit off the internet. Your post actually demonstrates that there IS something fundamentally wrong with Windows.
Isn't there some kind of "eye fone" or something to that effect that does just that? I may be misremembering, I can't claim to be infallible after all. Pretty sure that whatever it was has been known to catch a lot of flak on slashdot specifically for locking functionality away from users...
Roughly the size of Cthulhu.
But Cthulhu can change size at will...
Well then, IHBT! :P
I need to learn to preview. Sound propagation at various altitudes, not speeds...
I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that they are referring to Mach 3 at STP. I don't know how much measuring has been done of sound propagation at various speeds, so one would presume they're comparing velocity to sound at surface conditions...
Sipping beer is doing it wrong. A good beer is a full-mouth experience. And yes, that's what she said!
Strictly speaking, I wasn't offering The Sims as an example. Jojoba86 listed it as his example, and I was making a point in regards to that.
I guess I should have quoted the parent?
You're right, The Sims hasn't been any kind of success, and there isn't any large following of that series either because of it. Nobody likes that shit! Other games that simulate "real life" activities fail just as horribly- Nobody plays, say, Madden, or Skate, because you can play football or go skateboarding in real life!
...We done here?