You said - and I quote - "All students should have to go to public schools". Now you're contradicting that statement. Either you're too stupid to say what you mean in the first place, or you're too dishonest to admit to your real position after being called out on it. Either way you certainly have nothing of value to say.
No, I'm interesting in raising everybody UP to the lowest level.
I... uhh... what?
Where exactly are you going to raise them from? The lower-than-lowest level?
In the US, the rich don't give two shits about the poor, and that's wrong. The US has become a culture of, "I've got mine. Fuck you".
That's not even remotely true but, even if it were, I see no reason why we should let fuckwads like you make people even poorer. Commies are great at talking a big game about how they'll take care of the poor, but as soon as you take over, fucking EVERYONE becomes poor.
That's the trick isn't it? You love the poor so much that you want to make more of them!
Education should not come down to money. That's immoral, and it's stupid from a society aspect.
It's wrong and immoral to stop people from using their money to improve the education of their children, yet you seem to have no problem arguing for that. I love how you're trying to make yourself appear virtuous and morally superior while at the same time arguing for one of the most evil concepts I've ever heard. That's some Goebbels level shit right there.
People like you lie and call any attempt at giving poor people a decent standard of living "Communism". Fuck you.
I'm quite happy to give poor people a decent standard of living; I'm not going to let commie assholes like you make things worse for everyone.
You didn't need to demonstrate that you are stupid enough to believe your own libelous words; I previously already stated that your stupidity could constitute a valid defense. It doesn't change the fact that your words are lies, and that they constitute libel. And certainly none of it changes the fact that you get off on scoping out minors.
'Virtual particle' implies mathematical errors rather than concrete phenomena.
Um, no. The various forces describes by virtual particles are not measurement errors; they are quite real.
As far as I can tell from the literature, they do not appear to exist in a physical sense, only on paper (otherwise they would just be called 'particles' lol).
They haven't been observed "in a physical sense". This may be a valid objection insofar as virtual particles may not "exist" in the same sense as real particles, but the effects which we ascribe to them certainly do exist. Whatever the underlying reality may be, thinking of them as virtual particles is useful until we have some better model to explain it (or until we do observe them). Just like Newtonian physics was useful before we understood relativity and quantum physics (and continues to be useful in many everyday situations, despite the fact that it's "wrong").
And is it not the conventional understanding of the Big Bang that an extremely large amount of energy entered into our universe at one specific point in time? Does that not fit the definition of 'free energy'?
No. The big bang describes the beginning of our universe. Energy couldn't very well enter a universe which didn't exist.
Are 'Big Bangs' consistent with the second law of thermodynamics?
Universal laws such as the laws of thermodynamics are properties of our universe. It's nonsensical to talk about something being consistent with laws which only formed after it occurred.
I'm not sure what your objection is to virtual particles, but your belief that the big bang somehow implies "free energy" just demonstrates that you know very little about physics.
In your defense, it's not criminal libel if you're actually stupid enough to believe what you're saying. In the USA, anyway. In other countries you might still be found liable. Either way, reguardles of whether or not it's criminal, it's definitely libel.
We've all seen your comments talking about how much young boys excite you. Ffs, even your name is an allusion to pedophilia. You're not fooling anyone.
A) Your comment, maybe, global internet access, no. B) Millions of receivers will be tracking them. They kinda have to, if you want your internets. C) What's a "sky mess", exactly, and what kind of dealing do you imagine is required? D) It's not incorrect because most people don't believe it; it's incorrect because it's retarded, and that's why people don't believe it. E) Someone has mentioned a lot of stupid shit. F) No. G) No. H) If SpaceX goes out of business others will be quite happy to buy those satellites on the cheap. If by some miracle nobody is, then they go to waste. No big deal either way. I) What? How is this even.... WHAT?? J) They get replaced on a regular basis with new ones. Did you just arrive in the 21st century today? Go ask the local ISP what happens when their equient gets obsoleted. K) No, you tell them go right ahead. L) Yes, a ridiculously unlikely event will become slightly less ridiculously unlikely.
In fact the country of origin with the most number of illegal aliens in the US is.... Canada.
How do you convince yourself of such retarded shit? Is this like some new meme on the far left which I'm not aware of? Or did you just make it up on the spot and hope that nobody would question it?
Mexicans make up half of all illegal immigrants, at around 5 million:
The entire population of Canada is just over 30 million. Did you really expect people to believe that 15% of the Canadian population had illegally immigrated into the USA?
As I understand the international law (IANAL) a person seeking refugee status can do it at any NON adjoining country. Mexicans can't claim refugee status in USA, Guatemalans can't claim in Mexico but they can here.
No clue where you got that from. There is nothing even remotely like this in the international agreements. On the contrary, a guatamalan traveling through Mexico cannot claim asylum in the USA; he would be rejected on the grounds that he should have claimed asylum in Mexico.
There's been more than a few people looking into Zenneck waves. It doesn't change anything as far as power transmission is concerned since it's still limited by the inverse square law. It's a promising concept for communication, which is why people are interested in it, but the idea that it could be a useful method for power transmission is just a pipe dream.
Correct, just conventional energy; the magical "energy fields" which "psychics" and newage "healers" bang on about aren't limited by the laws of physics. Magic never is.
Not at all; I think it's disgusting that you're going around randomly libeling people as "racist" in order to distract from your pedophilia.
I do understand it to some extent, though. You're unable to string together a rational argument, and you're angry that we won't let you legally touch little boys, so you lash out in the only way you know how. Like a feces-flinging capuchin, it's just instinct for you. I get it. Doesn't meant I have to like it, any more than I have to like your pederastic proclivities.
I've always wondered about that. What exactly does "modified" mean? If I have to change my calipers and use non-OEM ones, is the car now modified? What about if a shop installs non-OEM shocks? Is that a modification?
The previous guy talked about even software changes to the entertainment system could potentially be dangerous... how is that different than having a custom deck put in? Does the insurance company consider a custom deck to be a "modification" which can void your policy?
The racist GP sais "white". People from india are not white.
White is a synonym for Caucasian, dupshit.
Why do you always virtue signal
If someone else were misusing that phrase I would point out that they don't know what it means... but not you. I know from past experience that you know what it means; you're just a disingenuous asshole who intentionally misuses it in order to troll.
We both know she founded a mosque AND a madrasa. The madrasa is a place of learning, the kind of thing we call universities these days.
Now this part I'm not sure about; are you actually stupid enough to believe that a 9th century madrasa was anything remotely like the later European universities? Or are you aware of the difference, and are again being a disingenuous fuck?
Your position is that if people sometimes do bad things we should shrug and say "yeah so".
Nonsense; my position is that that's what WOULD happen. The word "should" was inserted by you. Stop being a disingenuous fuck.
You want to equate everything from occasionally mild things with the absolute worst so you can devalue the whole term.
No, that's what the left is doing by throwing around words like "racist" and "Nazi" every time someone disagrees with them. I think it's stupid, and it needs to stop, exactly because - as you pointed out - it completely devalues the terms.
I know why: it's because you are racist
And you're a child rapist. We all have our shortcomings, but yours is clearly far worse than mine.
But like, there was 0 chance anybody was going to call the cops on me for standing out.
Probably because a black clerk in a black neighbourhood is about as likely to be robbed by a white guy as he is to be struck by lightning while restocking the chips aisle. Statistics do matter, even if the judgements are made at a subconscious level.
Of course it fucking works. If nobody bothered to enforce shoplifting laws, do you really think I'd go and pay $800 for a new phone? If police didn't impose insane punishments for going more than 20mph over the limit, do you really think I would stay under that? If the government didn't enforce tax law, do you really think I'd just give away 40% of my pay?
The fact that punishment isn't a deterrent 100% of the time doesn't mean it doesn't work; it just means some subset of the population will always be willing to take the risk. It sure as fuck works for the rest of us, though.
Slashdot Mirror
You said - and I quote - "All students should have to go to public schools". Now you're contradicting that statement. Either you're too stupid to say what you mean in the first place, or you're too dishonest to admit to your real position after being called out on it. Either way you certainly have nothing of value to say.
No, I'm interesting in raising everybody UP to the lowest level.
I ... uhh ... what?
Where exactly are you going to raise them from? The lower-than-lowest level?
In the US, the rich don't give two shits about the poor, and that's wrong. The US has become a culture of, "I've got mine. Fuck you".
That's not even remotely true but, even if it were, I see no reason why we should let fuckwads like you make people even poorer. Commies are great at talking a big game about how they'll take care of the poor, but as soon as you take over, fucking EVERYONE becomes poor.
That's the trick isn't it? You love the poor so much that you want to make more of them!
Education should not come down to money. That's immoral, and it's stupid from a society aspect.
It's wrong and immoral to stop people from using their money to improve the education of their children, yet you seem to have no problem arguing for that. I love how you're trying to make yourself appear virtuous and morally superior while at the same time arguing for one of the most evil concepts I've ever heard. That's some Goebbels level shit right there.
People like you lie and call any attempt at giving poor people a decent standard of living "Communism". Fuck you.
I'm quite happy to give poor people a decent standard of living; I'm not going to let commie assholes like you make things worse for everyone.
You could do it with CSS or with JavaScript, sure. Just keep that on the DL; don't need to be giving people any ideas ...
Well. Fair enough. I'm honestly at a loss as to how that could possibly have happened, but thanks for being honest enough to admit to your error.
You didn't need to demonstrate that you are stupid enough to believe your own libelous words; I previously already stated that your stupidity could constitute a valid defense. It doesn't change the fact that your words are lies, and that they constitute libel. And certainly none of it changes the fact that you get off on scoping out minors.
'Virtual particle' implies mathematical errors rather than concrete phenomena.
Um, no. The various forces describes by virtual particles are not measurement errors; they are quite real.
As far as I can tell from the literature, they do not appear to exist in a physical sense, only on paper (otherwise they would just be called 'particles' lol).
They haven't been observed "in a physical sense". This may be a valid objection insofar as virtual particles may not "exist" in the same sense as real particles, but the effects which we ascribe to them certainly do exist. Whatever the underlying reality may be, thinking of them as virtual particles is useful until we have some better model to explain it (or until we do observe them). Just like Newtonian physics was useful before we understood relativity and quantum physics (and continues to be useful in many everyday situations, despite the fact that it's "wrong").
And is it not the conventional understanding of the Big Bang that an extremely large amount of energy entered into our universe at one specific point in time? Does that not fit the definition of 'free energy'?
No. The big bang describes the beginning of our universe. Energy couldn't very well enter a universe which didn't exist.
Are 'Big Bangs' consistent with the second law of thermodynamics?
Universal laws such as the laws of thermodynamics are properties of our universe. It's nonsensical to talk about something being consistent with laws which only formed after it occurred.
I'm not sure what your objection is to virtual particles, but your belief that the big bang somehow implies "free energy" just demonstrates that you know very little about physics.
In your defense, it's not criminal libel if you're actually stupid enough to believe what you're saying. In the USA, anyway. In other countries you might still be found liable. Either way, reguardles of whether or not it's criminal, it's definitely libel.
We've all seen your comments talking about how much young boys excite you. Ffs, even your name is an allusion to pedophilia. You're not fooling anyone.
A) Your comment, maybe, global internet access, no. .... WHAT??
B) Millions of receivers will be tracking them. They kinda have to, if you want your internets.
C) What's a "sky mess", exactly, and what kind of dealing do you imagine is required?
D) It's not incorrect because most people don't believe it; it's incorrect because it's retarded, and that's why people don't believe it.
E) Someone has mentioned a lot of stupid shit.
F) No.
G) No.
H) If SpaceX goes out of business others will be quite happy to buy those satellites on the cheap. If by some miracle nobody is, then they go to waste. No big deal either way.
I) What? How is this even
J) They get replaced on a regular basis with new ones. Did you just arrive in the 21st century today? Go ask the local ISP what happens when their equient gets obsoleted.
K) No, you tell them go right ahead.
L) Yes, a ridiculously unlikely event will become slightly less ridiculously unlikely.
In fact the country of origin with the most number of illegal aliens in the US is.... Canada.
How do you convince yourself of such retarded shit? Is this like some new meme on the far left which I'm not aware of? Or did you just make it up on the spot and hope that nobody would question it?
Mexicans make up half of all illegal immigrants, at around 5 million:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...
The entire population of Canada is just over 30 million. Did you really expect people to believe that 15% of the Canadian population had illegally immigrated into the USA?
As I understand the international law (IANAL) a person seeking refugee status can do it at any NON adjoining country. Mexicans can't claim refugee status in USA, Guatemalans can't claim in Mexico but they can here.
No clue where you got that from. There is nothing even remotely like this in the international agreements. On the contrary, a guatamalan traveling through Mexico cannot claim asylum in the USA; he would be rejected on the grounds that he should have claimed asylum in Mexico.
There's been more than a few people looking into Zenneck waves. It doesn't change anything as far as power transmission is concerned since it's still limited by the inverse square law. It's a promising concept for communication, which is why people are interested in it, but the idea that it could be a useful method for power transmission is just a pipe dream.
Correct, just conventional energy; the magical "energy fields" which "psychics" and newage "healers" bang on about aren't limited by the laws of physics. Magic never is.
Not at all; I think it's disgusting that you're going around randomly libeling people as "racist" in order to distract from your pedophilia.
I do understand it to some extent, though. You're unable to string together a rational argument, and you're angry that we won't let you legally touch little boys, so you lash out in the only way you know how. Like a feces-flinging capuchin, it's just instinct for you. I get it. Doesn't meant I have to like it, any more than I have to like your pederastic proclivities.
Wheres the Marquee and Blink tags!!?
The blink tag no longer works on any modern browser. The marquee tag may or may not depending on your browser.
All students should have to go to public schools. Only then do students all get equivalent quality educations.
This is communism in a nutshell. Bring everyone down to the lowest level! Always willing to sacrifice progress at the altar of equality.
lol. Well your delusions are entertaining, at the very least.
Just stay away from kids, OK?
Did you just presume xer gender?
I've always wondered about that. What exactly does "modified" mean? If I have to change my calipers and use non-OEM ones, is the car now modified? What about if a shop installs non-OEM shocks? Is that a modification?
The previous guy talked about even software changes to the entertainment system could potentially be dangerous ... how is that different than having a custom deck put in? Does the insurance company consider a custom deck to be a "modification" which can void your policy?
It all seems rather nebulous.
If you think that the vast majority of people are not impacted by the prospect of punishment, you're either a retard or you're brainwashed.
Possibly both.
The racist GP sais "white". People from india are not white.
White is a synonym for Caucasian, dupshit.
Why do you always virtue signal
If someone else were misusing that phrase I would point out that they don't know what it means ... but not you. I know from past experience that you know what it means; you're just a disingenuous asshole who intentionally misuses it in order to troll.
We both know she founded a mosque AND a madrasa. The madrasa is a place of learning, the kind of thing we call universities these days.
Now this part I'm not sure about; are you actually stupid enough to believe that a 9th century madrasa was anything remotely like the later European universities? Or are you aware of the difference, and are again being a disingenuous fuck?
Either way, it's hilarious.
Your position is that if people sometimes do bad things we should shrug and say "yeah so".
Nonsense; my position is that that's what WOULD happen. The word "should" was inserted by you. Stop being a disingenuous fuck.
You want to equate everything from occasionally mild things with the absolute worst so you can devalue the whole term.
No, that's what the left is doing by throwing around words like "racist" and "Nazi" every time someone disagrees with them. I think it's stupid, and it needs to stop, exactly because - as you pointed out - it completely devalues the terms.
I know why: it's because you are racist
And you're a child rapist. We all have our shortcomings, but yours is clearly far worse than mine.
But like, there was 0 chance anybody was going to call the cops on me for standing out.
Probably because a black clerk in a black neighbourhood is about as likely to be robbed by a white guy as he is to be struck by lightning while restocking the chips aisle. Statistics do matter, even if the judgements are made at a subconscious level.
Of course it fucking works. If nobody bothered to enforce shoplifting laws, do you really think I'd go and pay $800 for a new phone? If police didn't impose insane punishments for going more than 20mph over the limit, do you really think I would stay under that? If the government didn't enforce tax law, do you really think I'd just give away 40% of my pay?
The fact that punishment isn't a deterrent 100% of the time doesn't mean it doesn't work; it just means some subset of the population will always be willing to take the risk. It sure as fuck works for the rest of us, though.