Comment Re:No LTE, less space than a nomad (Score 1) 359
for convenience?
oh, but you get an evil! I forgot. it's all horrible if you get an evil.
for convenience?
oh, but you get an evil! I forgot. it's all horrible if you get an evil.
just 'cause this is the internet doesn't mean you can just make stuff up.
in my hypothetical scenario i would think the stick would be in the middle. of the child's rectum.
i'm sure there are peacefull people who associate with Obama who are against drone strikes too.yet you seem happy to lump them all together.
1. noone's punishing him for a thought crime (or at all).
2. if two people wish to commit the same evil act, yet only one has the opportunity - they are both as evil, the person who has not had the opportunity should not be punished, but it doesn't make them any better.
3. both parties are guilty of and have been involved in what O.P. was stating - original quote:
Every time I see this kind of thing it just confirms that the biggest threat to peace and the ones creating racial intolerance and hatred are the US Government.
there is no mention of drone strikes at all that is something you have added.
if the U.S. Governement does something that both parties support it would be more correct to use the term 'U.S. Govt.' than one specific party. unless you're trying to sway political opinion.
if you don't try to sue them first you do.
Apple is the only company they've sued over a phone.
at the time that they sued them regarding FRAND patents they were not owned by Google
so Motoroogle has not in fact ever sued anyone regarding FRAND-pledged patents.
but you know, why let the truth get in the way of a good argument.
Back then it could take hours to download a browser suite over a modem
and imagine how much harder it would have been if you didn't have a browser to start with.
Today I with a few keystrokes and clicks I can install chrome in less than a minute and never see IE ever again.
and the first thing you click on to do that would be - IE
i got that when i came back from the U.S.
i figured it was due to the fact that i had previously travelled to saudi arabia
if doing that cost me zero time, effort, and money then i wouldn't have a problem.
even if we ignore the fact that they're not actually doing anything wrong and therefore shouldn't be liable for anything - there's still the point of it wouldn't be possible to link any specific accident to the page.
except odometers only have to be accurate to within 10% for a car to be roadworthy
If you don't break the law you can't get a ticket.
because speed cameras have never been found to be faulty, badly calibrated, or officers insufficiently trained in their use?
you've really never heard of inaccurate speed cameras or insufficient training in how to use them?
A portion of NSW speed cameras have been installed by Poltech International, some of whose installed cameras gave wildly inaccurate readings in Victoria.
Some motorists claimed they had been booked doing speeds their vehicles were not capable of reaching
Last month, following checks of these claims, it emerged that three of the cameras were faulty.
The readings had led to fines and licence suspensions for some motorists.
in the above scenario, shooting them is something he did.
if you need a different example, say you have donated 10's of thousands of dollars to what you thought was a great charity (thorough their legitimate looking website), yes was in fact an extremist terrorist group who committed some grand atrocity. you have then provided material support to terrorists. - you were trying to donate to charity which would be good, however you in fact provided material support to terrorists - bad.
in the same example say you knew they were not a charity but simply thought they would use the money to lobby congress/organise protests whatever to change peoples opinions towards their cause and were unaware they would commit horrendous acts.
or perhaps you knew exactly what they were doing but after weighing up the pros/cons were under the belief that the horrendous terrorist act would be of net benefit to society.
what if you were under the belief that only people who share your beliefs mattered and knew it would be of detriment others but of positive gain for your group.
in all of the above situations, you have provided material support to terrorists which has helped them commit horrendous acts. therefore by the definition "A good person is one who does good. A bad person is one who does bad." all the above would make you a bad person.
A good person is one who does good. A bad person is one who does bad.
so if you were an actor and had to shoot someone in a scene, and i replaced your prop gun with a real loaded weapon so you shot them for real you would be a bad person?
if someone's girlfriend tells them that they really like sex rough but in fact hate it and he has rough sex with her which she pretends to like yet really hates it. he is a bad person?
if someone holds a gun to my head and threatens to kill me unless i give them all my money, then when i hand them over my money that makes me a good person?
a good person is someone who does good - solely for the sake of being good.
The question of whether computers can think is just like the question of whether submarines can swim. -- Edsger W. Dijkstra