You've got to be the biggest moron in the world. It's not just atheists that want to have the government out of the religion business. If a person of religion cares about what they believe at all, they'd also like to keep the government far far away.
The entire Constitution is a left wing construction.
Why are you so self centered?
I can tolerate anything anyone does as long as I don't have to pay for them to do it. Why do you insist that I pay for you to practice your religion?
What if someone wears a t-shirt with a religeous reference?
If they make make me pay for that T-shirt, that's not OK. You don't understand what I'm saying do you?
Tell you what. I want to put an ad in the paper with my religious views. Send me 5 bucks. You don't have a choice about it. What do you think about that?
Ahh...but my first amendment rights trumps your silly argument. Oh...yeah...we only like the first amendment when it suits what we want.
Over and over again the courts have ruled against you. The record and the reasons are there. If you don't understand, then I urge you to read them.
Then how can people blasting rap music force the world to listen to them?
Are you serious? They can't force you to listen. Call the police.
You don't have to follow it or obey it or listen to it, but you should tolerate it.
No, I'm paying for that loudspeaker at the football game, and so are the 15% of my fellows who are atheists, and many more who believe in a god, but don't believe in yours. I don't have to tolerate that at all.
Nobody's saying that you can't pray. You can pray as much as you like, as long as you keep it out of my face and ears.
Get over it...some people want a prayer around certain events. If they want it, let them have it.
That's not allowed, because atheists don't want to hear any prayer at all. And one person's prayer is offensive to another person. When my tax money is going to pay for the school and the prayer, it offends me.
If you want to have one nation under God, then perhaps we should bring the Taliban and Afghanistan back. Iran is another good candidate. I hope you enjoy it!
1) Prayer is not illegal in schools. You can pray silently as the Bible commands, or students can get together and pray. No problem with that.
2) Tax money is used to support the public schools. Do not pretend that it doesn't. That means you can't put a prayer on a school loudspeaker and force people to listen to it during the course of a school event.
So you're saying that because a library offers material that some consider pornographic, that library becomes useless?
<sarchasm> Oh I guess that's why my library sucks. They have a copy of "I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings" in it. </sarchasm>
If a parent is so sensitive about their children seeing pornography, they they need to accompany the child to the library. By deciding to shield their child from porn, they need to take responsibility for that and do whatever it takes to shield their child. But, they cannot infringe on other's rights to do it.
Seems like you've got it backwards. When my tax money is used to pay for a religious display from the government, I start to wonder what country I live in. Would you be so happy to see tax money pay for a religion that you do not believe in? Would you like to hear a Wiccan pray for 10 minutes at a High School football game?
The ACLU doesn't litigate on behalf of the 2nd ammendment because there's another organization that specializes in just that, and does a much better job of it than the ACLU could ever do. If you check out what the ACLU has to say about the 2nd ammendment, you'll find that they don't say much at all. It is just as improper to say that the ACLU is against the 2nd ammendment as it is to say that the NRA is against the 1st. Would you not be a part of the NRA just because they don't litigate freedom of speech cases? Of course not.
Individual litigators for the ACLU might have strong opinions about it - even against it - but that doesn't dictate how they defend rights.
As an example of how lawyers who are opposed to something, but can still effectively defend rights, one only has to look at the famous defense of the Nazi's/Klan's right to march in Skokie. The lawyers who successfully defended their right to march in Skokie were Jewish. I'm sure they found the ideals of these groups repulsive, but everyone has to have freedom of speech, or we don't have freedom at all.
Define pornography. Would you include Playboy? How about Cosmopolitan? Swimsuit issue of S.I.?
All of those magazines have things in them that some call pornographic, yet all of those magazines are hardly pornographic in nature. Even Playboy. Count up the pages. Out of all the interviews, fiction, and other articles, a handful of them show nude women. They don't even show very much of the women.
In a library, there are obviously things that children and horny bums should not read. But, libraries are not built for children and horny bums. To deny legitimate access to material just because it's not appropriate to some is not right. This is probably where I should invoke the principle of "raise your children yourself." The library is not a babysitter. Neither is the TV, or the Internet.
start with a score of 0; if eyes detect a mouth, score ++; if ears do not detect a voice, score ++; if nose does not detect a smell, score ++; if score == 3, return ATTRACTIVE; bags = 3 - score; return bags;
Sturgeon's law: 90% of everything is crap. That includes trolls. I'd say that about 10% of all comments are worthy due to insight or interest. And 10% of all trolls are masterfully crafted. The rest fall into the bin of amateurish repostings of goatse.cx and the like.
I hope that helps. I described a lot more behavior than just the behavior of trolls, but it's a place to start.
About 10 years ago in Detroit some morons dropped a bowling ball off a highway overpass and it went through a windshield of a car and killed a woman who was a passenger. Now every bridge in Detroit has large fences to prevent anything from being dropped off the side.
Dyson came up with his own ideas long before Tippler, and his are based on an ever-expanding universe.
Essentially, the state machine that simulates all of us will run on temperature differences. As the universe expands, it cools. When the difference becomes large enough, the machine that we all live in can run a few cycles.
Over time, the length between cycles will increase, but we won't notice because the simulation, and therefore us, will be in the HLT state.
Since the universe will never reach absolute zero, that means that if the universe expands, there are an infinite number of cycles available to such a machine, and therefore, our simulations can live infinitely.
Some people think it's cute to own a yorkie and a great dane, so people can laugh at the huge size difference. I think I'm going to one-up them all with my E.Coli/Mammoth combo.
Now that I think about it, in 3 years when I upgrade I probably will have more than a gig. More likely between 4 and 16 gigs. That would be about 1000 times as much as I had 10 years ago, and a million times as much as I had 20 years ago.
That means in the 2013 I'll have perhaps 8 terabytes of RAM on my computer. Holy crap.
Double? I upgrade my computer roughly every 4 years. That's mobo, processor, and video card. I buy hard drives when I run out of space. So, whenever I upgrade, I tend to get things that are about 10 times faster than what I had before. I also tend to play games for a very long time before I move on to something else. I'm still having a lot of fun with Age of Empires, X-Plane, and my current system runs America's Army just fine. My next computer will probably be something like a 10 gigahertz AMD chip, a gig of RAM, and whatever video card works with Linux for less than $100.
I've got sshd running on my home machine on the usual port, and also on port 443. I don't have any secure web pages on my server, and most companies leave it open if they have port 80 open. Plus the data is encrypted just like you would expect on port 443.
Will you do me a favor and look up the delta-V on the Shuttle OMS engines? What you'll find out is that the difference between maintaining orbit and reentering is very very small.
Once you drop about 200 miles an hour from your speed, you're going to be on the ground in one hour. The idea that you can lower your speed over a long period of time by atmospheric braking just shows ignorance of how orbits work.
I am skeptical of your desire to learn, given the little jabs you put into your reply.
The shuttle didnt have a feew weeks of supplies? Give me a break.
I will not. Ignorance deserves no break.
i quote "Lower orbits are higher speed." the point is not to maintain orbit, but to lower speed
Your suggestion was to reduce speed and orbit over a two week period. That's an orbit. If you're not maintaining an orbit, then you're on the ground in about 1 hour. Therefore, if you said that you were reducing speed over a two week time period, you are talking about an orbit.
There are different angles of ascent, and the ascent used by Colombia is most likely a compromise of many factors.
Everytime you open your mouth... nevermind. Ascent is when you go up.
I'm curious, why did you use rubber instead of something else?
Can you use plastic, epoxy resin, asphalt, sugar, or horsehair? All of those things will definitely burn under an oxygen atmosphere, but rubber must be special somehow for you to choose it.
Slashdot Mirror
You've got to be the biggest moron in the world. It's not just atheists that want to have the government out of the religion business. If a person of religion cares about what they believe at all, they'd also like to keep the government far far away.
I'm no more special than you. If I'm paying for it, you can't put your silly religion on it.
Stop talking for a second and listen:
It's not your religion that offends me. What offends me is morons using stuff that I paid for to practice their religion. Got it?
The entire Constitution is a left wing construction.
Why are you so self centered?
I can tolerate anything anyone does as long as I don't have to pay for them to do it. Why do you insist that I pay for you to practice your religion?
What if someone wears a t-shirt with a religeous reference?
If they make make me pay for that T-shirt, that's not OK. You don't understand what I'm saying do you?
Tell you what. I want to put an ad in the paper with my religious views. Send me 5 bucks. You don't have a choice about it. What do you think about that?
Ahh...but my first amendment rights trumps your silly argument. Oh...yeah...we only like the first amendment when it suits what we want.
Over and over again the courts have ruled against you. The record and the reasons are there. If you don't understand, then I urge you to read them.
Then how can people blasting rap music force the world to listen to them?
Are you serious? They can't force you to listen. Call the police.
You don't have to follow it or obey it or listen to it, but you should tolerate it.
No, I'm paying for that loudspeaker at the football game, and so are the 15% of my fellows who are atheists, and many more who believe in a god, but don't believe in yours. I don't have to tolerate that at all.
Nobody's saying that you can't pray. You can pray as much as you like, as long as you keep it out of my face and ears.
What are you talking about?
Get over it...some people want a prayer around certain events. If they want it, let them have it.
That's not allowed, because atheists don't want to hear any prayer at all. And one person's prayer is offensive to another person. When my tax money is going to pay for the school and the prayer, it offends me.
If you want to have one nation under God, then perhaps we should bring the Taliban and Afghanistan back. Iran is another good candidate. I hope you enjoy it!
1) Prayer is not illegal in schools. You can pray silently as the Bible commands, or students can get together and pray. No problem with that.
2) Tax money is used to support the public schools. Do not pretend that it doesn't. That means you can't put a prayer on a school loudspeaker and force people to listen to it during the course of a school event.
So you're saying that because a library offers material that some consider pornographic, that library becomes useless?
<sarchasm>
Oh I guess that's why my library sucks. They have a copy of "I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings" in it.
</sarchasm>
If a parent is so sensitive about their children seeing pornography, they they need to accompany the child to the library. By deciding to shield their child from porn, they need to take responsibility for that and do whatever it takes to shield their child. But, they cannot infringe on other's rights to do it.
Seems like you've got it backwards. When my tax money is used to pay for a religious display from the government, I start to wonder what country I live in. Would you be so happy to see tax money pay for a religion that you do not believe in? Would you like to hear a Wiccan pray for 10 minutes at a High School football game?
The ACLU doesn't litigate on behalf of the 2nd ammendment because there's another organization that specializes in just that, and does a much better job of it than the ACLU could ever do. If you check out what the ACLU has to say about the 2nd ammendment, you'll find that they don't say much at all. It is just as improper to say that the ACLU is against the 2nd ammendment as it is to say that the NRA is against the 1st. Would you not be a part of the NRA just because they don't litigate freedom of speech cases? Of course not.
Individual litigators for the ACLU might have strong opinions about it - even against it - but that doesn't dictate how they defend rights.
As an example of how lawyers who are opposed to something, but can still effectively defend rights, one only has to look at the famous defense of the Nazi's/Klan's right to march in Skokie. The lawyers who successfully defended their right to march in Skokie were Jewish. I'm sure they found the ideals of these groups repulsive, but everyone has to have freedom of speech, or we don't have freedom at all.
Define pornography. Would you include Playboy? How about Cosmopolitan? Swimsuit issue of S.I.?
All of those magazines have things in them that some call pornographic, yet all of those magazines are hardly pornographic in nature. Even Playboy. Count up the pages. Out of all the interviews, fiction, and other articles, a handful of them show nude women. They don't even show very much of the women.
In a library, there are obviously things that children and horny bums should not read. But, libraries are not built for children and horny bums. To deny legitimate access to material just because it's not appropriate to some is not right.
This is probably where I should invoke the principle of "raise your children yourself." The library is not a babysitter. Neither is the TV, or the Internet.
start with a score of 0;
if eyes detect a mouth, score ++;
if ears do not detect a voice, score ++;
if nose does not detect a smell, score ++;
if score == 3, return ATTRACTIVE;
bags = 3 - score;
return bags;
"I say, I say, it's a joke son, a joke."
-- Foghorn Leghorn
Sturgeon's law: 90% of everything is crap. That includes trolls. I'd say that about 10% of all comments are worthy due to insight or interest. And 10% of all trolls are masterfully crafted. The rest fall into the bin of amateurish repostings of goatse.cx and the like.
I hope that helps. I described a lot more behavior than just the behavior of trolls, but it's a place to start.
The Art of Computer Programming, vols 1-3. and more when he writes them.
About 10 years ago in Detroit some morons dropped a bowling ball off a highway overpass and it went through a windshield of a car and killed a woman who was a passenger. Now every bridge in Detroit has large fences to prevent anything from being dropped off the side.
Dyson came up with his own ideas long before Tippler, and his are based on an ever-expanding universe.
Essentially, the state machine that simulates all of us will run on temperature differences. As the universe expands, it cools. When the difference becomes large enough, the machine that we all live in can run a few cycles.
Over time, the length between cycles will increase, but we won't notice because the simulation, and therefore us, will be in the HLT state.
Since the universe will never reach absolute zero, that means that if the universe expands, there are an infinite number of cycles available to such a machine, and therefore, our simulations can live infinitely.
I'm watching for coverage of the actual event in the Chicago White Dwarf Times.
Some people think it's cute to own a yorkie and a great dane, so people can laugh at the huge size difference. I think I'm going to one-up them all with my E.Coli/Mammoth combo.
Now that I think about it, in 3 years when I upgrade I probably will have more than a gig. More likely between 4 and 16 gigs. That would be about 1000 times as much as I had 10 years ago, and a million times as much as I had 20 years ago.
That means in the 2013 I'll have perhaps 8 terabytes of RAM on my computer. Holy crap.
Double? I upgrade my computer roughly every 4 years. That's mobo, processor, and video card. I buy hard drives when I run out of space. So, whenever I upgrade, I tend to get things that are about 10 times faster than what I had before. I also tend to play games for a very long time before I move on to something else. I'm still having a lot of fun with Age of Empires, X-Plane, and my current system runs America's Army just fine. My next computer will probably be something like a 10 gigahertz AMD chip, a gig of RAM, and whatever video card works with Linux for less than $100.
I've got sshd running on my home machine on the usual port, and also on port 443. I don't have any secure web pages on my server, and most companies leave it open if they have port 80 open. Plus the data is encrypted just like you would expect on port 443.
Those sites are utter piles of shit. If you're thinking of modding me flamebait, check the sites first.
Will you do me a favor and look up the delta-V on the Shuttle OMS engines? What you'll find out is that the difference between maintaining orbit and reentering is very very small.
Once you drop about 200 miles an hour from your speed, you're going to be on the ground in one hour. The idea that you can lower your speed over a long period of time by atmospheric braking just shows ignorance of how orbits work.
I am skeptical of your desire to learn, given the little jabs you put into your reply.
The shuttle didnt have a feew weeks of supplies? Give me a break.
I will not. Ignorance deserves no break.
i quote "Lower orbits are higher speed." the point is not to maintain orbit, but to lower speed
Your suggestion was to reduce speed and orbit over a two week period. That's an orbit. If you're not maintaining an orbit, then you're on the ground in about 1 hour. Therefore, if you said that you were reducing speed over a two week time period, you are talking about an orbit.
There are different angles of ascent, and the ascent used by Colombia is most likely a compromise of many factors.
Everytime you open your mouth... nevermind. Ascent is when you go up.
I'm curious, why did you use rubber instead of something else?
Can you use plastic, epoxy resin, asphalt, sugar, or horsehair? All of those things will definitely burn under an oxygen atmosphere, but rubber must be special somehow for you to choose it.