I hate driving everywhere... the sheer insanity of driving to a gym so that you can exercise!
You have a house. Why not buy some gym equipment and setup an exercise area? Heck it would easily pay itself back considering how expensive gym memberships are.
Another way of looking at it: If you work in a suburban office park, describe how it's different in any significant way from the one portrayed in Office Space.
Wait, urban business don't have cube farms? For me personally, living in a city would be like my entire life is Office Space. Work in a cube, come home to a cube of an apartment. Except that the cube of an apartment is ridiculously expensive.
I don't want to steer this discussion away from the topic, but this is exactly why no theist will ever be able to convince me about the "truths" of his religion. How am I supposed to believe that those word-of-mouth stories that are thousands of years old could be true when people believe in such ludicrous things as "the moon hoax", despite the fact that it was a much more recent event and there are tons of material evidence to support the fact that there was *no* super-competent con man who supposedly managed to trick thousands of engineers into thinking that they are not building a fake rocket and that they are not receiving fake telemetry not from the Moon? People *want* to believe in the irrational, they find something irrational everywhere they look. Human capacity for self-deception never ceases to amaze me.
Fascinating. I take the opposite lesson, that despite the all of the evidence for the moon landing there are deniers just 40 years after the event. I can imagine in 2000 years most people not believing the story of the moon landing. From their standpoint, how could a primitive technological society who just learned about spaceflight manage to get to the moon and back. And then for some reason just "stopped" going all of a sudden for 50-100+ years.
From a theological standpoint, if Jesus arrived today as in the BIble there would be just as many disbelievers 2000 years ago as there are today despite all of the video and news stories generated.
Jackson did a great job with bringing Middle-Earth to life in sets and costumes, but that hurdle has largely been crossed. The Hobbit needs someone who can take the sets and costumes and tell a story.
Peter Jackson managed to take the LOTR trilogy and make it a critical and popular success, winning both box office awards AND the OSCAR for BEST PICTURE. Let me repeat that--he took a trilogy of orcs, elves, dwarves, and hobbits and managed to win an academy award for best picture. That isn't just great film making--that is a freaking miracle
Free speech is a human right, the speech of corporations can be limited.
Well that eliminates every newspaper and publisher in the country. I'm sure that's what the Constitution intended.
... that those tribesmen 2000 years ago would have been jewish , right? So where does the christian bashing come into it?
"If you want to know why readership has declined significantly, here is an example."
Yeah right, because most of
Not.
Get over yourself.
Well not anymore. Actually, I think the only people left are sanctimoniousness jerks who live in an echo chamber.
Except it's not a translation of the word of God, but a translation of a bunch of superstitious middle-eastern tribesmen from 2000 odd years ago (or more).
I find it extremely sad that Slashdot has declined to the point where any random Christian-bashing is modded +5 Insightful, instead of off-topic. If you want to know why readership has declined significantly, here is an example.
The only people I trust less than qualified, vetted, officials is uneducated jackasses pretending to understand the world around them when really they are just ignorant twits. There is a mantra from conservatives "They think they know better than you!". Um, yep. I think the scientists and knowledgeable health professionals "know better" than the backward backwater assholes who raise their children as if it were the year 1512.
I am very much pro-vaccination. I do have to point out it wasn't a "uneducated conservative" who started this mess, but Andrew Wakefield who was considered a "knowledgeable scientist and health professional". And there are thousands of examples where the scientists and medical professionals were wrong and/or completely changed their consensus (ex. breastfeeding bad/good). Someone breastfeeding in 1969/1970 may have been considered a ignorant, backwater redneck for choosing archaic breastfeeding over the scientifically developed, precision method of delivering nutrition that is Infant Formula.
But I do think billion-dollar estates should be taxed--a lot. The wife and kids (if any) did not create wealth. They deserve money, but so do we.
1. Using the term wife and not spouse or partner is sexist and assumes that only men can create large value estates.
2. You cannot assume that a spouse or partner did not assist in the creation of wealth. In divorce proceedings, there is something called "Reimbursement Alimony" whereby the spouse is compensated for their contribution to the other spouse's career.
3. Thirteenth Amendment to the US Constitution abolished slavery. You do not "deserve" anyone else's money.
Slightly off-topic but if you are asking "what can I do" and you want to get at the root cause, not the symptom, you might want to check out the Move to Amend.
Do you realize if the "Move to Amend" passed, then what Google/Amazon/etc are doing could and would be illegal! Heck, this very Slashdot post would be illegal since it could be construed to influence an election and a forum could be argued as not meeting the criteria as "press".
The thing is, it's only Republican legislaters that are so darn against the millionaire's surtax.
Actually, the money is coming out of Social Security not the general budget. The argument for SS is that it is a government managed retirement fund and that what you get out is based on what you put in. Receiving SS benefits is equivalent to a 401k or pension in that you get what you earned.
Making millionaires contribute to SS is changing the meaning of what it is, from something I earned to getting other peoples' money. This actually makes it less secure because it takes away the moral aspect of receiving SS benefits. It goes from something I earned to wanting other peoples' money. Which makes it easier for politicians to cut benefits in the future.
Isn't the White House saying $40 / paycheck or did I miss something? For those of us who have real jobs, we get paid once every 2 weeks. Hence, $40 / paycheck is just over $1000 / year.
Quote from Obama
"[On] Tuesday, we asked folks to tell us what would it be like to lose $40 out of your paycheck every week. "
Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/12/22/president-obama-discusses-what-40-means-americans-families
A more important deception is that it is a reduction in the amount taxpayers pay into Social Security--NOT the general budget. This is more akin to reducing the amount of 401k withholdings than a tax break because you will have to make it up later one way or another--either through reduced SS benefits or increased SS taxes to make up for the deficit.
You have to put this into context... Students around the country are being priced out of an education, while banks are getting filthy rich enslaving entire generations of young people with crushing debt attempting to chase the American Dream. All this happening while School Chancellors are retiring on multimillion dollar pensions and salaries that are growing astronomically every year. When such a vanishingly few seem to grow wealthy on the backs of those they should be serving how can you honestly say students shouldn't exercise their fair and legal right to protest publicly.
Wait, I thought the protest was called "Occupy Wall Street" not "Occupy the Overpriced Universities". Sadly, while I keep hearing about the 1% and evil Capitalists I don't hear anything about the Universities charging hundreds of thousands for a worthless piece of paper and a watered-down education.
Crab fishing? Ice road trucking? Paranormal investigation?
Governments do not want a critically thinking populace. Just suck up the bullshit they, the bought dogs of the corporate states of America, want you to think and believe.
Science and math require a solid foundation in the basics. With a solid foundation, politicians, corporate thugs and banksters cannot sway the public. Bread and circuses brought down the Roman Empire in approximately 200 years. This country is next.
1. Since when do corporations control education? Education is dominated by liberal progressives who are, if anything, anti-corporate. If anything, it is the generally left-wing educational establishment which is discouraging critical thinking. See http://thefire.org/ for numerous examples of the suppression of free speech at college campuses.
2. The term "Bread and Circuses" refers to the Roman government buying off the citizens, and is more analogous to politicians buying off their constituency with pork and other handouts than anything else.
The dose makes the poison. http://learn.caim.yale.edu/chemsafe/references/dose.html
Your body is ~60% water, but you can die by drinking too much: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication. Every day we are bathed in DNA-damaging ionizing radiation called sunlight, yet we somehow don't all get skin cancer. And yes, you can drink safe amounts of water and receive unsafe amounts of radiation. But understanding the difference between A causing B "always" and the messy reality that it involves a safe and unsafe range is the difference between being a paranoid lunatic and a sane and educated person.
With your bare hands?!?
