Yeah, that for me was the strongest argument against "Man goes for joyride, claims malfunction to get off speeding fine".
A lorry driver in the UK got prosecuted for claiming he couldn't slow down, without trying the various obvious measures, but this guy either lied about the response to various things suggested by Renault, or was genuinely caught in a nasty situation.
I am however still confused by the 'ended up in a ditch' bit. Unless he was approaching a blocked junction and just ran out of road.
Indeed, dairy cows know when and where their udders are going to get relief and will walk themselves to the milking yard (or stable, or barn, or whatever the fuck those rural types call it).
There's a footbridge over the M6 motorway just south of Sandbach which will have cows crossing it just after 6am, no farmer/dogs/tractors in sight, because they know it's milking time.
Perhaps the answer is to use a cork to stop them going until they're in the right place. They clearly respond to the physical relief caused by being emptied.
(Either that or the pleasure of having their tits squeezed. Hmm. Self-service milking machines positioned over grating?)
I agree completely, and this is one reason I hate '... on the internet' laws. If it's illegal then being on the internet is irrelevant. If it's legal, then doing it on the internet shouldn't make it illegal.
However, porn isn't all made domestically. Where porn involves or depicts genuine pain or abuse, it's less likely to be made domestically. Worldwide the level of protection under the law, and the thoroughness and fairness of applying those laws just isn't at domestic standards.
Would you support an "Only local porn" law? That might be an interesting compromise.
Forced prostitution may be more prevalent, but there's plenty of evidence of people being coerced into sexual acts (with or without acts of sexual violence - and who doesn't enjoy a good spanking) and filmed.
Unfortunately it's difficult to research online due to the overwhelming noise from the "porn is evil" brigade, that don't know how to properly research or cross-reference their evidence.
I think people should be encouraged to enjoy sex, and if people want to earn a living through physical performance art then that sounds great. I'm just not going to be a customer, as I can't prove (to my own standards, let alone to the Crown Prosecution Service) that there was free will involved.
Assuming we can get a license for it we turn these things around in my department in under 48 hours when you don't need new hardware
Hi, this is your CFO. We have to submit our accounts in the next three hours or the FSA shut us down. Can you create us a database with these 17 input sources, matched across 78 fields and with 14000 rows, with this set of validations, calculations and outputs?
Btw, because we're on a tight timescale, can you build it incrementally so that we can do data cleansing and correction as we go?
In the real world, IT departments just aren't fast enough.
Most of the cars I see are not BMWs, Audis or Mercedes. Most people don't spend more than their annual pre-tax salary on a car. Most people do not earn $50,000 a year.
Breaking news: "average car"s ARE low-cost fucking cars.
Ironically if you gave Jeremy Clarkson an electric car that performed like a BMW M3, had the range of a BMW M3, looked as good as a BMW M3, could be recharged as quickly as filling the fuel tank on a BMW M3 and cost the same, he'd recommend it in an instant.
He's not unreasonable, stupid fuckwit car companies expecting people to drive like pensioners in their $50k car and still only go less than 300 miles are unreasonable.
$50k? That's three times the price of the average car, which incidentally will also do 3-400 miles every time you fill it up.
The only people I know that drive a $80k car have a dual-income where both partners earn approximately three times the national average. So fuck yes, it costs way too much.
You forgot the mutated introduction of green marbles, immune to the predator, that eventually reach a population mass by which they can breed themselves.
Saying someone's sport is their religion is an indicator of their devotion to it and/or a satire on religion (depending on your perspective). Sport isn't a religion.
Atheism includes the belief that there is no creator
No. Simply, no. Why the fuck do people keep getting this wrong?
Atheism is the lack of belief that there is a creator.
However, comically I just checked dictionary.reference.com and it actually agrees with you: 1.the doctrine or belief that there is no God. 2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Clearly written by a religious nutjob:)
Atheism (taken to its etymological roots) means 'no god'. That infers nothing about belief. I do not have to believe that there is no god, in the same way that I do not have to believe that there is no flying hippo, or that there are no ghosts.
Note that although I also don't think there's any evidence of extra-terrestial life, I do accept its possibility and likelihood. I don't believe in it, but I wouldn't be surprised if we were able one day to provide evidence (at which point I still wouldn't believe in it, because I wouldn't have to).
Such is the nature of belief, and the lack of belief. I do not believe in god. This makes me an atheist. It does not require me to believe in a negative.
I am. This means that I can use logic to astonishing levels.
You omitted the important phrase stated by the person you replied to: "given the assumptions of the day".
We know that our understanding of the world is imperfect. (This is in itself logical, as there are many unanswered questions in science and we are also continually refining and improving our understanding). Therefore our axioms are more likely to be wrong than right. Logically we should thus discount use of those axioms in logical constructs to define reality.
This is why experimentation is rather useful, and why you shouldn't rely just on logic. People are still devising tests for Einstein's theory. This isn't because they necessarily think he was wrong, they just need some evidence.
My belief that you're a twat has no theistic relevance and does not concern the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. Insulting you is merely a personal pleasure and does not demonstrate religious beliefs.
I'm fine with people believing in weird shit. Go for it. But don't tell me that I need to research more or have faith or learn about your god or trust that you're right. Don't teach your lies to children. Don't embed the population control mechanisms made up by other people that share your beliefs into the laws of my country. Do not use those beliefs to justify racism, homophobia, misogyny, slavery or warfare (whether economic or physical).
Do any of those things, and I'm going to call you out on it. I'm going to deride your beliefs because by drawing attention to their lack of bases in fact and their abusive mechanisms, I can help other people realise that you're merely exploiting them.
No need to shove your beliefs down anyone else's throats.
You'll find that the thing that pisses off most atheists is exactly this. They don't have religious beliefs to show down anybody's throat, and often merely wish that people with such beliefs wouldn't either.
1. Design by an intelligence is required to explain some characteristics
2. Evolutionary processes are required to explain some characteristics
This is just the facts of reality, easily verified.
I disagree that 'design by intelligence' is required to explain any characteristics of plants, animals or other 'living' things, except those genetically fucked around with by humans.
Unlike the guy with the poorly kids I can cope with a hypothesis that states, "Intelligent Design has occurred", but I've seen no evidence that it has been done by any agent other than men of science. So my hypothesis is "Intelligent Design has occurred without human involvement".
I've seen no evidence that contradicts the theory of evolution. I certainly don't think that you've demonstrated "we have a mechanism to test the plausibility of design". No, you have a mechanism to fool people into thinking you're taking a scientific approach while ignoring the vast body of evidence that runs counter to my hypothesis.
I don't normally play the UID game, but trust me, being around a long time doesn't mean you're not a cunt.
Having excellent karma means even less. I've had excellent karma since the day they switched from numbers to adjectives, and I insult people all the time.
religion [ri-lij-uhn] noun 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. 2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion. 3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions. 4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion. 5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
(from dictionary.reference.com)
As atheism includes no beliefs, it falls under none of those definitions.
Oddly enough Atheism is a religion, an irony that I love to pull out and poke into soft flesh.
Yeah, we've heard about members of the catholic church and their child abuse. But no, atheism is not a religion.
The ability not to speak of it without sounding like an idiot is understandable from someone idiotic enough to believe in some imaginary being.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, that for me was the strongest argument against "Man goes for joyride, claims malfunction to get off speeding fine".
A lorry driver in the UK got prosecuted for claiming he couldn't slow down, without trying the various obvious measures, but this guy either lied about the response to various things suggested by Renault, or was genuinely caught in a nasty situation.
I am however still confused by the 'ended up in a ditch' bit. Unless he was approaching a blocked junction and just ran out of road.
Of course she cared. Her very first lesson for the new child: Always approach from the side.
I opened this story specifically to suggest that.
Not because I think it's practical, but because watching a farmer trying to change one would be a fantastic spectator sport.
Indeed, dairy cows know when and where their udders are going to get relief and will walk themselves to the milking yard (or stable, or barn, or whatever the fuck those rural types call it).
There's a footbridge over the M6 motorway just south of Sandbach which will have cows crossing it just after 6am, no farmer/dogs/tractors in sight, because they know it's milking time.
Perhaps the answer is to use a cork to stop them going until they're in the right place. They clearly respond to the physical relief caused by being emptied.
(Either that or the pleasure of having their tits squeezed. Hmm. Self-service milking machines positioned over grating?)
I agree completely, and this is one reason I hate '... on the internet' laws. If it's illegal then being on the internet is irrelevant. If it's legal, then doing it on the internet shouldn't make it illegal.
However, porn isn't all made domestically. Where porn involves or depicts genuine pain or abuse, it's less likely to be made domestically. Worldwide the level of protection under the law, and the thoroughness and fairness of applying those laws just isn't at domestic standards.
Would you support an "Only local porn" law? That might be an interesting compromise.
Thanks. Can I have a cookie?
Forced prostitution may be more prevalent, but there's plenty of evidence of people being coerced into sexual acts (with or without acts of sexual violence - and who doesn't enjoy a good spanking) and filmed.
Unfortunately it's difficult to research online due to the overwhelming noise from the "porn is evil" brigade, that don't know how to properly research or cross-reference their evidence.
I think people should be encouraged to enjoy sex, and if people want to earn a living through physical performance art then that sounds great. I'm just not going to be a customer, as I can't prove (to my own standards, let alone to the Crown Prosecution Service) that there was free will involved.
Assuming we can get a license for it we turn these things around in my department in under 48 hours when you don't need new hardware
Hi, this is your CFO. We have to submit our accounts in the next three hours or the FSA shut us down. Can you create us a database with these 17 input sources, matched across 78 fields and with 14000 rows, with this set of validations, calculations and outputs?
Btw, because we're on a tight timescale, can you build it incrementally so that we can do data cleansing and correction as we go?
In the real world, IT departments just aren't fast enough.
to me it is totally obvious that porn is overwhelmingly good in almost every way, with only a tiny amount of harm.
Only if the participants want to participate.
See also: slavery.
Most of the cars I see are not BMWs, Audis or Mercedes. Most people don't spend more than their annual pre-tax salary on a car. Most people do not earn $50,000 a year.
Breaking news: "average car"s ARE low-cost fucking cars.
What happens when you drive at European motorway speeds?
Just that nobody I know drives at 60. Shit, most people are doing 60 halfway down the slip road to even get onto a motorway.
Ironically if you gave Jeremy Clarkson an electric car that performed like a BMW M3, had the range of a BMW M3, looked as good as a BMW M3, could be recharged as quickly as filling the fuel tank on a BMW M3 and cost the same, he'd recommend it in an instant.
He's not unreasonable, stupid fuckwit car companies expecting people to drive like pensioners in their $50k car and still only go less than 300 miles are unreasonable.
$50k? That's three times the price of the average car, which incidentally will also do 3-400 miles every time you fill it up.
The only people I know that drive a $80k car have a dual-income where both partners earn approximately three times the national average. So fuck yes, it costs way too much.
You're resplendent in being fuddled, maybe. Elmo could give more coherent discussion.
You forgot the mutated introduction of green marbles, immune to the predator, that eventually reach a population mass by which they can breed themselves.
Atheists "believe" there is no god, when we differentiate between what we know,think,feel and believe.
I am an atheist. I do not believe there is a god. I do not need to believe there is no god.
I'll drop sports and such under def.1 for fun.
Saying someone's sport is their religion is an indicator of their devotion to it and/or a satire on religion (depending on your perspective). Sport isn't a religion.
Atheism includes the belief that there is no creator
No. Simply, no. Why the fuck do people keep getting this wrong?
Atheism is the lack of belief that there is a creator.
However, comically I just checked dictionary.reference.com and it actually agrees with you: .the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
1
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Clearly written by a religious nutjob :)
Atheism (taken to its etymological roots) means 'no god'. That infers nothing about belief. I do not have to believe that there is no god, in the same way that I do not have to believe that there is no flying hippo, or that there are no ghosts.
Note that although I also don't think there's any evidence of extra-terrestial life, I do accept its possibility and likelihood. I don't believe in it, but I wouldn't be surprised if we were able one day to provide evidence (at which point I still wouldn't believe in it, because I wouldn't have to).
Such is the nature of belief, and the lack of belief. I do not believe in god. This makes me an atheist. It does not require me to believe in a negative.
Only a religious nutcase wouldn't find the FSM funny.
You're not a programmer are you?
I am. This means that I can use logic to astonishing levels.
You omitted the important phrase stated by the person you replied to: "given the assumptions of the day".
We know that our understanding of the world is imperfect. (This is in itself logical, as there are many unanswered questions in science and we are also continually refining and improving our understanding).
Therefore our axioms are more likely to be wrong than right. Logically we should thus discount use of those axioms in logical constructs to define reality.
This is why experimentation is rather useful, and why you shouldn't rely just on logic. People are still devising tests for Einstein's theory. This isn't because they necessarily think he was wrong, they just need some evidence.
My belief that you're a twat has no theistic relevance and does not concern the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. Insulting you is merely a personal pleasure and does not demonstrate religious beliefs.
I'm fine with people believing in weird shit. Go for it. But don't tell me that I need to research more or have faith or learn about your god or trust that you're right. Don't teach your lies to children. Don't embed the population control mechanisms made up by other people that share your beliefs into the laws of my country. Do not use those beliefs to justify racism, homophobia, misogyny, slavery or warfare (whether economic or physical).
Do any of those things, and I'm going to call you out on it. I'm going to deride your beliefs because by drawing attention to their lack of bases in fact and their abusive mechanisms, I can help other people realise that you're merely exploiting them.
No need to shove your beliefs down anyone else's throats.
You'll find that the thing that pisses off most atheists is exactly this. They don't have religious beliefs to show down anybody's throat, and often merely wish that people with such beliefs wouldn't either.
1. Design by an intelligence is required to explain some characteristics
2. Evolutionary processes are required to explain some characteristics
This is just the facts of reality, easily verified.
I disagree that 'design by intelligence' is required to explain any characteristics of plants, animals or other 'living' things, except those genetically fucked around with by humans.
Unlike the guy with the poorly kids I can cope with a hypothesis that states, "Intelligent Design has occurred", but I've seen no evidence that it has been done by any agent other than men of science. So my hypothesis is "Intelligent Design has occurred without human involvement".
I've seen no evidence that contradicts the theory of evolution. I certainly don't think that you've demonstrated "we have a mechanism to test the plausibility of design". No, you have a mechanism to fool people into thinking you're taking a scientific approach while ignoring the vast body of evidence that runs counter to my hypothesis.
Apparently immam has one m too many.
A child's perception of God and Nature is necessarily challenged as he matures.
Indeed, as the child gradually realises they've been lied to by people that should know better.
I'd prosecute priests, immams and rabbis for child abuse.
I don't normally play the UID game, but trust me, being around a long time doesn't mean you're not a cunt.
Having excellent karma means even less. I've had excellent karma since the day they switched from numbers to adjectives, and I insult people all the time.
Especially when they're arrogant and stupid.
religion [ri-lij-uhn]
noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
(from dictionary.reference.com)
As atheism includes no beliefs, it falls under none of those definitions.
Oddly enough Atheism is a religion, an irony that I love to pull out and poke into soft flesh.
Yeah, we've heard about members of the catholic church and their child abuse. But no, atheism is not a religion.
The ability not to speak of it without sounding like an idiot is understandable from someone idiotic enough to believe in some imaginary being.