Hear hear for the AC. This guy gets it.
Hear hear for the AC. This guy gets it.
My Logitech Cordless Optical Trackman. The singular failure of this device is that it is not Bluetooth, or Unifying receiver compatible.
You kids can keep your mice, forcing you to move your arm all over the place. I'll stick with my finger control.
You should learn to read more carefully.
Most of the people here talking about the 'interview' are talking about the last segment of the show where a person comes out and talks to Jon regarding something. Those are almost never edited, and as has been mentioned, when they are, they tell you to see the entire interview on the web site.
The 'guest interviews are edited to hell and back' that you keep parroting are in fact the bit segments where one of the show's corespondents go out and talk to someone. Those are so completely and obviously edited, It surprises me that you seem to think no one does.
I would argue that they are edited for comedic effect, especially when it is a guy saying that $2 an hour is a wage for interns and, in his own words, the 'mentally retarded', or a guy that has a state level job of representing a fetus in court, even though the state (my home state to be exact) doesn't provide the same level of representation for already born people, even though the Constitution suggest that everyone in a criminal case has the right to legal counsel. And oddly, the people that seem to complain the loudest are not ones that claim that TDS twisted their words into saying something they did not say, it is almost always people complaining because they didn't think TDS would air them saying that the only people willing to work for $2 an hour are interns and retarded people.
They are upset because their distractions were cut out of the bit and all that was left was a guy saying that people do no deserve to make a living by working. Unless the honestly believe that people can survive on $2 an hour?
One is the interview, the other is a bit carried out by the correspondents; not the same thing.
If you are going to disagree with someone, it would help if you were talking about the same damn thing. Doesn't mean you are wrong or right, just that you cannot talk about something with another person unless you actually talk about the same thing. Otherwise, it just makes it look like you are repeating a phrase because you have nothing substantive to offer in the conversation, or you are not aware that you are not talking about the same thing as the rest of the group.
Actually, ISIL hasn't flown planes into anything, that was Al Qaeda (not Iraq). They haven't beheaded children.That story goes to a single source, not in the area ISIL currently controls, is the single person claiming this. The only photo of a beheaded child is from 2013, and was killed by bombs dropped by the Syrian government.
14 of the guys in the planes were Saudis. Why not go hate on them?
But please go on and spread propaganda to lead the US into yet another war in a place we never should have been in the first place. These wars of choice always work out so well in the end.
Did anyone else catch Tom
Sure he had to doctor the story to fit him in, but I'm pretty excited about it.
Not a condemnation? Are you high?
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."
You can argue as to what 'lie with mankind' means, but to suggest that ' to’evah ' translated to abomination isn't a condemnation is just dishonest.
You joke, but it would be a pretty huge deal.
The problem is that they claim their book is the word of their god. If they can discard parts as allegory, but others as truth, then how do they decide? At whom's whim does the decision rest?
That people need to create new explanations for why the Bible says something that they decided it doesn't mean to say anymore makes me think that the book wasn't right in the first place and people are desperate to keep it relevant. If 'god' didn't want people to think the world was 6,000 years old, why say it was in the book? Seems like 'a long long time ago' would have conveyed the same idea, but prevented people that believe the book to be true from running around with obviously flawed information. Even George Lucas figured out it was easier to be vague, one would think the creator of all things would at least be at that level. That some are 'quite comfortable' with their ever changing assumptions regarding the content of their book doesn't make them enlightened, it makes them look like they would rather change the entire meaning of the book rather than admit it might not be true.
Making one's faith fit science seems to be a lesser evil that forcing the science to the faith, but in the end you are still forcing something to be 'true' when an entirely different conclusion could reached by throwing away the requirement that the answer hold to a bronze age religion.
Why would the creator of all things need to worry about his 'spiritual enemies'? We are talking about something that, according to some, existed before the universe. Beings so far removed from the physical plane wouldn't need to worry about humanity moving into the stars or trying to trick the bad guys into wasting their time so the good guys could convert more people. Unless you are suggesting that the same beings that supposedly go before the throne of 'god' to tattle on believers need to concern themselves with something as mundane as distance between stars? That 'god' even has enemies seems to undermine his claim to being a god. He can create all existence, but he needs to worry about the evil schemes of his creations? That doesn't sound much like a god. Sounds like a bad science fiction novel in which an entire armada is powerless to stop the enemy until a lone pilot flies in and saves the day...
More power to you I guess.
Netcat is a crutch. Pico; now there is an editor you can trust!
Mod this up.
So many things in this world can be fixed by just being considerate and asking. I have no idea why people seem to miss that.
So rather than design a child's oven with a heat element, someone stumbled across the gimmick to use a light bulb. I imagine an actual heating element would have been just as efficient (or inefficient depending on how you look at it) as the light bulb, plus you could get longer life out of the element, and be able to reduce the area of the oven since you didn't need the room for a bulb.
Just saying: Easy Bake oven exploit the waste heat of a lighting device. That is clever, but clever doesn't mean ideal.
The Court has also said that corporations are entitled to the same 'rights' as actual people. They interpret the laws; doesn't mean they are right.
And so you are a birther? Honestly. If anytime you don't agree with something you pull out the 'we can't be sure' card, how do you ever make it through a day. You claim an education, but as an engineer, when someone presents to you something with which you do not agree, do you hound them to prove their point and when they do, you shout 'But I could fake that!', and then ignore their point?
Just because 'you' can think of a way it could be faked, that doesn't mean it was faked. I can think of how 9/11 was an inside job, but that doesn't mean I have any delusion as to if it was or not. Imagination is not evidence of anything aside from your biases.
Can you post something that isn't a paste of you last 5 posts? Not arguing with you, just asking you to take a little more effort. "Whatever. My research shows
And as for 'more people watching FOX so it must be better/is what most people think'; at one point in this country, most people thought blacks weren't 'really' people, or at the very least, they thought they were not as worthy as whites. Doesn't mean it was good or right, just popular.