Why wouldn't you just make a mold that makes that whole piece?

Once i visited a friend, who lived in a student dorm. 30 students on one building floor, all shared one kitchen and two fridges. I opened one fridge to fetch a beer ... well, my reaction was exactly the same. I screamed. Mold all over and some weird, hellish stench. Ahh, student days. Good old times!

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

>> ^xxovercastxx:
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
>> ^xxovercastxx:
I have zero problems with breast feeding but I still think that doll is a little weird.

Not a problem at all--but you don't have a right to think it will make whores out of young girls, or laugh at it like a douche...
Which you have not--I am speaking to the Fox-asses.

Well of course they have those rights, they just have to deal with looking like morons.

There is a difference between "can" and "right". They can say what they want--even if it causes hate crimes and whatever. The doctor "could" have taken my child for not formula feeding...
It is not their "right" because governments "can" take it away. However, I say this for another reason. Let's say they wish to inflict this verbal ridicule, this verbal abuse that molds a country into bewb-o-phobes and makes it very unfriendly towards natural-feeding mothers (I.e., America) That verbal ridicule can hurt a hell of a lot worse than a slap to the face. In fact, on a side note, verbal ridicule causes some gays to harm themselves, but back to topic. Yes, you can say whatever you want. And I "can" walk up to them and break their noses. But should I? Should they? They have no right, and neither do I.


I am forced to conclude that we have very different definitions of "right". I agree there's a distinction to be made but I think it's between "should" and "right".

>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
>> ^xxovercastxx:
I have zero problems with breast feeding but I still think that doll is a little weird.

Not a problem at all--but you don't have a right to think it will make whores out of young girls, or laugh at it like a douche...
Which you have not--I am speaking to the Fox-asses.

Well of course they have those rights, they just have to deal with looking like morons.


There is a difference between "can" and "right". They can say what they want--even if it causes hate crimes and whatever. The doctor "could" have taken my child for not formula feeding...

It is not their "right" because governments "can" take it away. However, I say this for another reason. Let's say they wish to inflict this verbal ridicule, this verbal abuse that molds a country into bewb-o-phobes and makes it very unfriendly towards natural-feeding mothers (I.e., America) That verbal ridicule can hurt a hell of a lot worse than a slap to the face. In fact, on a side note, verbal ridicule causes some gays to harm themselves, but back to topic. Yes, you can say whatever you want. And I "can" walk up to them and break their noses. But should I? Should they? They have no right, and neither do I.

@marbles
They don't exist. No one decides if I have a right to life, but the society decides that I have a right to life within that society. It is essentially a house rule.

Life is a biological process.

Our internal compass is nature/nurture. We are taught most of it by our parents and can be molded when we are young, but some things are biologically "built in" through natural selection.

Damm, quit talking about it and show us already!
It's a great idea, but the samples they show look terrible (all drippy) and they never once show us actually "printing with chocolate"

I'm guessing the traditional method (using molds) is still the best way

She seems to have the same Palin disease of not knowing what she's talking about and instead making shit up. This we don't need to raise the debt ceiling rhetoric is blatant political maneuvering without any serious thought to the long term consequences. They've just read a poll that says 69% of Americans don't want the ceiling raised, so they go on TV and tell us they oppose raising it.

You know that if the ceiling doesn't get raised and we default or stop paying our military, they'll be on TV saying how rotten the president is for not paying the bills. If there's a deal without budget cuts they'll moan we're spending ourselves to oblivion. If there are cuts, they'll complain about what all the federal layoffs do to the unemployment rate.

The fundamental problem is politicians who care more about winning than governing. I've had students who tell me "I don't really read," and I think these politicians are in the same mold. They go to fundraisers, they talk to their political advisers. Who has time to actually figure out what effect various policies will have? Mitch my-top-legislative-priority-is-winning-an-election-4-years-from-now McConnell was the old poster child of this camp, but Palin and Bachmann have supplanted him.

This is how someone who actually wants to solve problems sounds:
source

Unhappy that negotiators remained at approximately $1.7 trillion in cuts, Cantor pressed again for a shorter deal or for negotiators to find their way to $2.5 trillion. The president, growing more agitated, argued that attendees were simply looking for ways to say no.

"Talk about arbitrary," he said of Cantor's figure, according to a Democratic attendee. "I am totally willing to do the hard stuff to get well above what you need and you won't do it because you can't put one penny of revenue on the table."

"At least Mitch McConnell, to his credit, was willing to work for a solution," the president added, acknowledging the proposal by the Senate Minority Leader to, essentially, give him the authority to lift the debt ceiling without passing commensurate cuts.

"I have reached the point where I say enough," Obama concluded, according to Reuters. "Would Ronald Reagan be sitting here? I've reached my limit. This may bring my presidency down, but I will not yield on this."

That's just depressingly pedantic, rryjkyjdhu..

Omniscience is the capacity to know everything. Deliberately limiting Himself does not reduce that capacity. God is not the combination of every possible state of being. God is only good and not evil, for instance. God is not a combination of the two, he is just wholly good. Perfection is the overriding attribute here. Because it is more perfect to be wholly good instead of good and evil, He is just wholly good. Just as it is more perfect for God to limit Himself to give us free will than to not limit Himself and have puppets.



>> ^Ryjkyj:
>> ^shinyblurry:
"I, even I, am the one who wipes out your transgressions for My own sake; and I will not remember your sins"
This is a key passage about Gods omniscience. He can choose to limit Himself.
Genesis 2:15-17
And the Lord God commanded the man, “You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die.”
God gave Adam and Eve permission to eat from any tree in the garden. That was their free will choice. He then told them not to eat of the tree of knowledge. That was His command. He also explained what would happen if they did eat it.
Now, a way He could limit His knowledge here and still know what He was doing is this.. Imagine that you're at fork in the road. For either of those two choices, God knows every possible outcome and how to handle it. He is prepared for your choice, but doesn't know which one you will choose. Is it because He couldn't know? No. It's because He set it up so we had a real choice, so He chose to limit Himself in some way which allows for our free choice. He is prepared for every possible outcome, but as to what it will be, He allows us to write the next chapter.
Ultimately, God wants us to obey Him because He knows what is best for us. He knows which road is the best while we don't. Unless we obey God, we may choose the worst path. Though we only obey God according to how much we love Him. Love is an act of will, so obedience is a free choice. It all comes down to love.
God wants to mold us from the ground up. He wants us to follow the best path every time. But we have to love and trust God first. We have to sit at His feet and learn because we don't know any better. That's why it is written:
Matthew 8:13
And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
This is a very indepth issue..not easy to see all the angles. Yet, there is a cohesive explanation which is rooted in love. Of all the details, love is the most important one.
>> ^Ryjkyj:
If God is omniscient, then he knew exactly every action humankind would take from the time they were conceived until the end of eternity.
There is no free will if God is omniscient.


That's great, but if there's something that God doesn't know, even if he chooses not to know it, then by definition he is not omniscient.

>> ^shinyblurry:

"I, even I, am the one who wipes out your transgressions for My own sake; and I will not remember your sins"
This is a key passage about Gods omniscience. He can choose to limit Himself.
Genesis 2:15-17
And the Lord God commanded the man, “You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die.”
God gave Adam and Eve permission to eat from any tree in the garden. That was their free will choice. He then told them not to eat of the tree of knowledge. That was His command. He also explained what would happen if they did eat it.
Now, a way He could limit His knowledge here and still know what He was doing is this.. Imagine that you're at fork in the road. For either of those two choices, God knows every possible outcome and how to handle it. He is prepared for your choice, but doesn't know which one you will choose. Is it because He couldn't know? No. It's because He set it up so we had a real choice, so He chose to limit Himself in some way which allows for our free choice. He is prepared for every possible outcome, but as to what it will be, He allows us to write the next chapter.
Ultimately, God wants us to obey Him because He knows what is best for us. He knows which road is the best while we don't. Unless we obey God, we may choose the worst path. Though we only obey God according to how much we love Him. Love is an act of will, so obedience is a free choice. It all comes down to love.
God wants to mold us from the ground up. He wants us to follow the best path every time. But we have to love and trust God first. We have to sit at His feet and learn because we don't know any better. That's why it is written:
Matthew 8:13
And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
This is a very indepth issue..not easy to see all the angles. Yet, there is a cohesive explanation which is rooted in love. Of all the details, love is the most important one.
>> ^Ryjkyj:
If God is omniscient, then he knew exactly every action humankind would take from the time they were conceived until the end of eternity.
There is no free will if God is omniscient.



That's great, but if there's something that God doesn't know, even if he chooses not to know it, then by definition he is not omniscient.

"I, even I, am the one who wipes out your transgressions for My own sake; and I will not remember your sins"

This is a key passage about Gods omniscience. He can choose to limit Himself.

Genesis 2:15-17

And the Lord God commanded the man, “You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die.”

God gave Adam and Eve permission to eat from any tree in the garden. That was their free will choice. He then told them not to eat of the tree of knowledge. That was His command. He also explained what would happen if they did eat it.

Now, a way He could limit His knowledge here and still know what He was doing is this.. Imagine that you're at fork in the road. For either of those two choices, God knows every possible outcome and how to handle it. He is prepared for your choice, but doesn't know which one you will choose. Is it because He couldn't know? No. It's because He set it up so we had a real choice, so He chose to limit Himself in some way which allows for our free choice. He is prepared for every possible outcome, but as to what it will be, He allows us to write the next chapter.

Ultimately, God wants us to obey Him because He knows what is best for us. He knows which road is the best while we don't. Unless we obey God, we may choose the worst path. Though we only obey God according to how much we love Him. Love is an act of will, so obedience is a free choice. It all comes down to love.

God wants to mold us from the ground up. He wants us to follow the best path every time. But we have to love and trust God first. We have to sit at His feet and learn because we don't know any better. That's why it is written:

Matthew 8:13

And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

This is a very indepth issue..not easy to see all the angles. Yet, there is a cohesive explanation which is rooted in love. Of all the details, love is the most important one.

>> ^Ryjkyj:
If God is omniscient, then he knew exactly every action humankind would take from the time they were conceived until the end of eternity.
There is no free will if God is omniscient.

>> ^petpeeved:

Neat enough.
I'm probably a freak but in my ripe old age of 38, I feel like my brain hasn't really evolved much beyond what Windows XP offers. I'm sure children weened on game controllers with dual joysticks and a trillion buttons will have brains hardwired to enjoy these operating systems that seem to encourage not actually concentrating on one thing at a time but just watching all the task switching in this video made me physically nauseated.
Could have been the veggie dogs I just ate though.
I guess the "bigger" point I'm trying to make is that it seems like perhaps we've reached the point where the user interface is beginning to mold the way our brains work rather than our brains molding the UI.


Society is being dumbed down. Meaning, newer OS are easier to use than older ones. New features? A quick 5 minute tour once you get your new software installed. It's really not a big commitment, but it's well worth it IMO

Neat enough.

I'm probably a freak but in my ripe old age of 38, I feel like my brain hasn't really evolved much beyond what Windows XP offers. I'm sure children weened on game controllers with dual joysticks and a trillion buttons will have brains hardwired to enjoy these operating systems that seem to encourage not actually concentrating on one thing at a time but just watching all the task switching in this video made me physically nauseated.

Could have been the veggie dogs I just ate though.

I guess the "bigger" point I'm trying to make is that it seems like perhaps we've reached the point where the user interface is beginning to mold the way our brains work rather than our brains molding the UI.

he's right though, kudos to him, I definitely respect him a whole lot more. I have more respect for people that ignore sheep or herd like mentality that political correctness tries to force everyone into the same mold.

Guys like this that state an opinion, even if others don't like it are ones I have a lot of respect for and wish more did so.

Today it's become more and more true about freedom of speech though

"True freedom of speech, even offensive, is achieved in it's greatest form in anonymity. "

What's sad is more and more people aren't allowed to state their mine cause people like in comments or media will try and demonize them, so it's becoming more and more prevalent that the only true free speech is in anonymity which is wrong.

Screw Political Correctness and kudos to Lars

(Sorry for the length of this response...)

He wants to be President, and? You imply he is a worse choice than say, the current President (Who has left open a facility to torture, predominately, Muslims,) or the President/s before him (a President who used a degree to fight two wars without batting an eye as to why.) I would hope you can admit he would have been FAR better than Obama or Bush…

So Paul has an issue with property rights and the government telling you what to do? Thoreau also had problems with that line of thought. I think the greater part of their argument, that he fails to articulate, is that---when a government takes power, it always takes more power in time. And when it has the power, it finds a way to abuse it. We see that has happened.

Oh, and I am so glad that the law in 1964 protects minorities... except that the wealthy and white have found 1 million loopholes around it with other laws... Blacks commit a crime? More punishment and jail time than a white. Blacks need a job? No, go away... How about, blacks need welfare? Sure, so long as you don't make anything of yourself. WE STILL HAVE JIM CROW LAWS IN THIS COUNTRY. GET OVER IT. ONLY SOCIETY AT LARGE CAN FIX THIS PROBLEM. AND WE WON’T, BECAUSE WE DON’T WANT TO.

So glad that the useless law does something ineffectively... Oh, and go to certain bars in PA as a black man, and lets see how far the patrons let you go before removing you. Glad that a law will protect your rights as your being stabbed to death--then protects him as the white, racist judge laughs and acquits his friends.

I also think the problem; we don’t ask, what is the principle behind Paul’s actions? Racism? No... Nor greed (The reason pot is illegal, for example.) It is relying on humanity to do the right thing. Unfortunately, as so often the case, Humanity is horrible (See Rome, genocide, and religion)--and we blame Paul for being naive; and he is. But so are we. Instead of holding accountability to the sign holders we laugh at Paul’s ignorance. Instead of blaming the murderer, or rapist, we blame the politicians who have not put laws out there to "protect us.”

Kind of like--"Well, she was wearing slutty clothes so we should blame her for being raped!" I know, I know, that is a far-fetched comparison, but it still fits to some degree. Both people do not deserve to be attacked for their statements (One who was making a statement by dressing physically attractive, and the other one who makes a statement verbally with good intentions.) But, as is the case, people do punish both in society.

I think Paul would be better off being a liar so he could actually get elected--because, though people may do it unintentionally, they elect the bad guy because the good guy always loses. But then, if he did become a winner through deception, he would just be another in a mold of thousands.

The funny part is that in matters such as this, Paul would have no sway in the agenda; he would only have a say in matters of Liberal agendas (Close Gitmo, stop wars, debt, cut down the drug war, end the Patriot Act., etc.) So even if you did elect him, Netrunner, you would get the best of both worlds. No gold standard, but most of your agenda would be fulfilled… Of course, Liberals suck at thinking logically (Even the part of me that is liberal, and there is quite a bit, has this problem.)

Speaking of society, here is my example…
http://videosift.com/video/The-new-Olympic-sport-Cunt-Punching

Nerd rap infests your internet. You left a trap, but it's empty.
MC Frontalot took a gape but the bait wasn't tempting,
ending up uncaged and at large
to talk smack at you through the networking appliance that's in charge
of every drip of your attention.
Yo, when mine goes out I've got to log in just to mention
my disappointment at the interruption of convenience.
I mean just: a lot left, but none up in between this
couple of minutes here and a couple of minutes later.
It's an outrage, at the price I paid. These dictators
of my leisure rule with an iron fist.
Has anybody ever been so put upon as this?

Your GPS run out of battery (first world problem)
Got to wake up Saturday (first world problem)
You just delayed a honeymoon (first world problem)
Pledge season's coming soon (first world problem)
Half your friend list is spam accounts (first world problem)
And your center channel speaker's out (first world problem)

Muffy, my hair regrowth cream is mostly ineffective
and I'm struggling to keep this in perspective,
but I feel like a massive injustice occurred.
Says "regrows hair" on the tube (in the words)
in a third — or maybe a quarter — of all users.
I must have got swindled. Is it a fault? Of whose is?
Oooh, Muffy, Muffy, I had all the servants tortured.
Did you keep them on retainer? Do you got some more on order?
'Cause I can't comb my hair on my own no more.
I got accustomed to the lifestyle, sniffed upon the spore
and it molded up my innards, made the blood turn blue.
Muffy, Muffy, there's a revolution; what we're gonna do?

Misplaced the Ambien (first world problem)
Left a participle dangling (first world problem)
You're scheduling your root canal (first world problem)
Your grad schooling had no rationale (first world problem)
You didn't like your appetizer (first world problem)
Your yacht got capsized (a first world problem)

Now while our capitalism is in a minor kerfuffle,
you have to hustle. Before the fates come, reshuffle.
Rustle up another couple grievances and air 'em.
You can laugh about it later (maybe needed while despairing).
For the moment though, you ordered half caf, didn't get it;
there was no TV set when you jetted; internet resetted
itself just as I was in the middle
of tournament play, and so I suffered from transmittal
interruption. Completely ruined my day.
MC Frontalot's a jackass, that's all I'm trying to say.
People buy CDs in these days of disaster,
so poor me: I have to be a professional rapper.

No bubbles in the soda cup (first world problem)
App crashed when you loaded up (first world problem)
Phone's OS is outta date (first world problem)
Colors won't calibrate (first world problem)
They never stock the snack you want (first world problem)
Caught herpes from a celebutante (first world problem)

Got wallhacked in PVP (first world problem)
Oh no, HD-DVD (first world problem)
Pixels aren't perfect square (first world problem)
Your favorite rapper isn't debonair (first world problem)
You own too many underwear (first world problem)
And you're not much of a millionaire (first world problem)