I honestly think rating people in a service like this will make it feel even more artifical and 'disconnected'. Coolness is not a one-dimensional scale, and what is interesting to you might not be interesting to the next person. Such a system would just make some people try to optimize their score, i. e. not really caring about the relation in itself.
I know this is a popular way to phrase it, but opponents of gay marriage are not saying gays shouldn't have the same rights as other people. Not being allowed to marry a person of the same sex is a universal law, it doesn't just apply to gay people. It does only affect them though, but that is not the same,especially when people are using this argument (as you do) to insinuate that people opposing gay marriage think gay people are lesser beings or something like that.
You're drawing a distinction without difference. You can phrase basically any rule that discriminates against a subgroup as a rule on the larger group that only affects the subgroup. For example, I don't think anyone would say, "It isn't discrimination against women to forbid all people from doing something without a Y chromosome." The fact that the phrasing doesn't say "women" doesn't make it not discrimination, because it specifically targets attributes of women.
>It does only affect them though, but that is not the same,especially when people are using this argument (as you do) to insinuate that people opposing gay marriage think gay people are lesser beings or something like that.
Actually to the best of my knowledge, it is the same, at least under US law. De facto discrimination is still considered discrimination.
I remember reading a question about this somewhere, where it was stated that because of the massive turbulence inside a vacuum, there was very little chance of a spider surviving something like that!
The first part seemed good and reasonable, though towards the end (from day 10 onwards) I felt like the guy was kind of just trying to come up with stuff to excite the reader, and which in my mind cluttered the simplicity of the rest, i.e. the 3 things a week, 3 things a day, hotspots, monday vision and friday reflection (+ dump your brain, but everyone says that).
Would you mind giving a more concrete telling of how you have implemented this system in your life and which parts of this 30 days-thing you find to be indispensable and which are just fluff?
Hm, I disagree. Usually when you read a book/watch a movie, you do have a pretty good idea who will survive. I mean, even in the original trilogy, most people knew how things would go down since the books were well known. I would say more interesting is how it goes down, and you can still have tension even if you know the final outcome. Same thing with folk tales: you know the hero is going to win, but it is still enjoyable to hear the tale told.
Yup, you're right. It does add something for sure. I guess the further away a show/movie strays from common tropes the more important is the value of not knowing what will happen.
Normally, I would only mean the opposite but in this context, my intuition was to allow the shady trader to value numbers and their own time over words and grammer.
Not that this reasoning is useful AT ALL but I guess I was frustrated with myself for looking beyond poor grammar. Normally I stick to realms where grammar is highly valued but like many of us, I am making an effort to learn more about currency markets these days. It is a culture shock.
Yeah, to call the theory of an invented Jesus 'simpler' is quite a stretch, since you then would have to explain both the rise of Christianity, the gospel writings, and the records of Josephus the Jewish historian who did write about a prophet named Jesus. Simpler would in this case assuming there did indeed exist such a man.
When I read this I though a violent struggle didn't happen but that he wanted to imply that it did. The reason is that it reminds me of similar techniques that my more drama-loving acquaintances use,and based on the way this is written, this guy has a flair for drama. My guess is that something happened where the author got scared and as a side effect hurt himself. Meaning he can garner sympathy and still not technically lie about what happened, but make you fill in the blanks with stuff that didn't happen. I would love to stand corrected on this, though.
