Slashdot Mirror
Domain: hutnick.com
Stories and comments across the archive that link to hutnick.com.
Comments · 35
-
Re:No, not worse than the old boss
It's too bad you don't have the courage to vote your conscience. If you did, we might get a candidate that you actually want, instead of the second-most-objectionable candidate.
To quote Penn Jillette, "Keep voting for the lesser of two evils and things will just keep getting more evil."
-Peter
-
Re:Web standards
You know I find it moderately amusing how everybody who makes arguments like yours has a horribly bland looking website.
Pro Tip: Presentation matters as much as the content. In fact, presentation *is* part of the content.
-
I Made a Shirt About This
Back in February
-Peter
-
Re:Land of the free
I think Penn Jillette said it very well, through the character of a sock monkey.
You can waste your vote only by voting for someone you don't want. You don't want the winner. Don't waste your vote on someone who's going to win. He doesn't need your vote; he's going to win. Keep voting for the lesser of two evils and things will just keep getting more evil.
-Peter
-
Re:Also, dudas, 'chinaman' is not the preferred ..
Me as Walter.
-Peter -
Re:Or maybe ...I generally refrain from replying to people's sigs . . . but your email is hidden and I can't resist. At the time of this writing your signature reads, "What part of 'a well regulated militia' do you not understand?"
I assume you mean to convey by this that you interpret the second amendment as defining a State/collective right, and not an individual one. I'd like to respond with a quote from my own web page:The first Congress passed the Militia Act of 1792, which said, in part:
[. .
So you see, militia was only meant to restrict who possessed firearms on a basis of race and sex, not based on military service.
In light of this fact, do you maintain that the second amendment is not meant to ensure an individual right to arms? (Surely we can agree that such a right, should it exist, should not be restricted on the basis of sex, race, or seniority.)
-Peter -
Re:Fine by me.
A bunch of my friends love the film "Snatch", but I strongly disliked it. I think that one is a matter of being very close to being on my frequency, but the narrow miss really turned me off.
To this day you can catch me calling out, "Come find me, Gilbert!" from time to time.
I love all of Kevin Smith's stuff. His concert films are really funny. "Amy" is my favorite film of his, but "Clerks II" has really grown on me. Captures some of the magic of both "Clerks" and of "Amy". Other favorites include "The Big Lebowski", "Donnie Darko", and lots of usual suspects like "The Matrix", "The Empire Strikes Back", and the Lord of the Rings trilogy. I like some of Tarantino's stuff. "M*A*S*H" is really good.
I really liked the Sci-Fi channel's "Dune". The effects were a little cheesy, and the acting was . . . mixed, but they really made a good go at doing the source material justice.
I generally dislike French cinema, but I'll check those out. I'll need to check out "El Mariachi" as well.
Oh, I was Walter Sobchak last Halloween.
-Peter -
ContextThis is from the answers page to my kooky political quiz:
The first Congress passed the Militia Act of 1792, which said, in part:[. .
So you see, militia was only meant to restrict who possessed firearms on a basis of race and sex, not based on military service.
-Peter -
Re:Get Informed
Good for you! I think Penn Jillette makes this point very well in "Sock".
-Peter -
Cafe Press?
Use f5, Go to Jail
Someone has to make a shirt for these kids!
-Peter -
Re:That's great, but
-
Re:Mythbusters
I like mythbusters, but they missed the boat, so to speak, on this one.
I build a Death Ray and it works great.
-Peter -
Re:Shanda...
The elusive shanda!
-Peter -
I Only Wish
My Plextor DVD drive can only be flashed from Windows or MacOS. I only
-Peter -
Re:Joss Whedon
Okay, she's wearing a dress when she's kicking the dudes around.
But I don't know many chicks who wear stretch pants with little buckles and grommets and shit on 'em.
-Peter -
Re:pwn3d
I'm glad you asked, because I have an answer to that too!
I think Penn Jillette summed it up nicely.
Why do campaign contributions from businesses get people elected?
-Peter -
Re:No Surprise
Where does this clout come from? Surely it comes from the fact that they have obtained a substantial number of votes in past elections.
I'm not sure how your statement that Democrats and Republicans are the same changes anything in this context. If the OP had said that CA had more than one party it would make sense. (And would show insight into our system. I often state that, "There ain't a nickel's worth of difference between a Democrat and a Republican.")
Anyway, you seem to be trying to draw some distinction in structure between the US and Canada. I can only see a difference in outcome.
Finally, just because I like it, here's an excerpt from Penn Jillette's "Sock".
-Peter -
Re:Just look at the size of a word document today
Try this. 3.9 meg (windows) AbiWord package with the OO.o Write and MS Office Word filters, but no dictionary.
-Peter -
Re:Drawing Parallels
Laurels are honors, awards, or distinctions. (From the Greeks wearing wreaths of laurel on their heads in victory. I'm sure you've seen the busts.)
If one rests on his laurels it means he lives by the adoration earned by his past accomplishments. He doesn't continue on the path that lead him to those honors.
Bottom line, "laurels" doesn't mean "ass."
(Cribbed from my own website.) -
Re:Now all we need...The first Congress passed the Militia Act of 1792, which said, in part:
[. .
So you see, militia was only meant to restrict who possessed firearms on a basis of race and sex, not based on military service.
-Peter
PS: This was snarfed from the answer page of my political quiz. -
Re:AbiWord
I've stripped down AbiWord as much as I can and added the OO.o
Got it down to 3.9 megs. You can grab a tarball at http://hutnick.com/littleabi/.
If someone wants to make this a zip (since tar can be a bit tricky for windows users) send me a link and I will upload it. My email address is above.
-Peter -
Re:intro to encryption
Try this.
-Peter -
Re:One more for the anecdotes..
But if the game precluded cannons, and one player decided to break the rule, wouldn't it ruin the game for everyone?
Or as I say on my site, One aspiring tyrant is all that is required to destroy a utopia.
-Peter -
Re:George Lucas's Dream - A Reality
Kinda.
Wait, this isn't Fark!
-Peter -
Plans
Coincidentally, I have a plan all drawn up. Perhaps I could colaborate with the BAS.
-Peter -
Re:Authority
I think is safe to say that there is plenty of basis for a federal police force
Why is it safe to say that? Because the "federal" government would never exceed their authority?
The fact is that there isn't even the most general or vague authority in the constitution for any police force. It is hung on the "interstate commerce clause" which I discuss briefly in a cousin post.
It would probably surprise you to learn that the word "federal" that you used in your post doesn't make any appearances either . .
You might give the Constitution a read. It is the instrument by which we, the people give some of our sovereign authority to the Union government.
You might also take my quiz. It will probably shake up your political conceptions a bit.
-Peter -
My Days at Dell
The second story down is somewhat on-topic . .
Tech support tales.
-Peter -
The Amazing Larry
I know this isn't Fark . .
I guess it isn't common knowledge that he used to be known as The Amazing Larry.
-Peter -
Re:Big PictureLess nasty, brutish, and short for me.
If someone chooses to shorten his own life expectancy by entering my home unbidden, that's his decision.
To be clear, I am a very gentle person. I have no desire to bring anyone harm. Strike that. I have a desire not to bring anyone harm. OTOH and IMNSHO pacifism only enables aggression. My desire to not be victimized is stronger than my desire to not bring anyone harm. Anyone who violates the peace of my home has forced me to choose between these two evils.
The bottom line is that I see it as very little choice. As traumatic as it would be to me to shoot someone, it would be far more traumatic to be hacked to death in my own home.
So, if you can figure out how to get everyone in the world to simultaneously sign on as pacifists I'm all for it. But it only takes one dissenter to ruin the plan.
I'm reminded of a couple of things I've said on my website:
One aspiring tyrant is all that is required to destroy a utopia.
and
Beat your swords into plowshares . . . then beat your knives into iron collars you can wear for your new masters.
I like peace. But history has shown us that you can't buy peace with happy thoughts.*
-Peter
* Please note that I am not in favor of the war in Iraq, and don't particularly support President Bush. I dislike his policies. Particularly: 1. His first proposed budget (which was prior to Sep. 11) was larger than President Clinton's last budget, in spite of the fact that he campaigned on "smaller government." 2. The Patriot Act and a general willingness to disregard the individual rights of Americans. 3. His consummate failure on the Iraq issue. Particularly in light of the fact that he campaigned on getting out of the business of nation building. -
Re:Big PictureLess nasty, brutish, and short for me.
If someone chooses to shorten his own life expectancy by entering my home unbidden, that's his decision.
To be clear, I am a very gentle person. I have no desire to bring anyone harm. Strike that. I have a desire not to bring anyone harm. OTOH and IMNSHO pacifism only enables aggression. My desire to not be victimized is stronger than my desire to not bring anyone harm. Anyone who violates the peace of my home has forced me to choose between these two evils.
The bottom line is that I see it as very little choice. As traumatic as it would be to me to shoot someone, it would be far more traumatic to be hacked to death in my own home.
So, if you can figure out how to get everyone in the world to simultaneously sign on as pacifists I'm all for it. But it only takes one dissenter to ruin the plan.
I'm reminded of a couple of things I've said on my website:
One aspiring tyrant is all that is required to destroy a utopia.
and
Beat your swords into plowshares . . . then beat your knives into iron collars you can wear for your new masters.
I like peace. But history has shown us that you can't buy peace with happy thoughts.*
-Peter
* Please note that I am not in favor of the war in Iraq, and don't particularly support President Bush. I dislike his policies. Particularly: 1. His first proposed budget (which was prior to Sep. 11) was larger than President Clinton's last budget, in spite of the fact that he campaigned on "smaller government." 2. The Patriot Act and a general willingness to disregard the individual rights of Americans. 3. His consummate failure on the Iraq issue. Particularly in light of the fact that he campaigned on getting out of the business of nation building. -
Re:whoaI think that a reasonable person can at least infer my positions from what I said, but since you are unsatisfied I will gladly directly answer ever direct question you asked. (And quite a bit more at the end, at no extra charge.)
What do you mean exactly?
I mean exactly what I say. No government institution has (or should have) the power to thwart the free exercise of religion. Even, especially on public property.
I'm not maniacal about this. I don't think that students should be allowed to be inordinately disruptive. I don't think they should be allowed to sacrifice chickens in the back of the Science classroom. Banning prayer, however, is clearly a violation of the first amendment.
Again, I am an atheist (note the small "a") so I don't have a pony in the race. OTOH, I can read, and those who interpret the first amendment to offer freedom from religion are self-deluded.
That government-run schools should enforce prayer at schools or that they should not?
I'm not sure what the correct semantics to answer this question are. Any "enforcement" of prayer would amount to the institution of state religion, and therefore would not be permitted under the Constitution.
So I guess; No, yes they should not.
That statement is a little confusing to me. I don't see the banning of school prayer as limiting religious expression.
I couldn't disagree more. How can "banning" something not be "limiting" it? Or do you think that praying doesn't fall under the exercise of religion? I'm baffled by your statement.
School prayer is government *enforcement* of religion and the "moment of silence" is just as bad.
I agree that schools (to include teachers, administrators, etc.) should be banned from ANY "enforcement" of prayer.
I don't see what is bad about a moment of silence. Does silent reflection require a belief in any Gods?
I must also say that the degree of emotional weakness required for a person to be "hurt" by standing in a football stadium where (nearly) everyone else is praying to a god he doesn't believe in is quite beyond my ability to comprehend.
I respect your stance on abortion - but does your respect for human life also extend to capital punishment, the collateral damage incurred in the bombing of Iraq or the starving homeless that line U.S. streets and intersetions? Just curious, because I've found that most anti-abortionists/pro-lifers to make excuses to justify the other ills that are results of disrespect for human life.
I have the utmost respect for human life. That does not mean that I do not believe that a person's life can never be forfeit. I do support capital punishment. I do, in certain cases, support war, in spite of the fact that there is inevitable loss of life, even innocent life. (See this essay for my opinions on the current war.)
I think that anyone who wantonly and actively caused homeless starvation through direct action should be just as culpable as anyone who causes the abortion of a fetus through direct action.
To back away a bit, things have causes. Sometimes those causes are direct and sometimes the are indirect. Some causes are due to action, some to inaction. Some actions are justified, some are not.
Unjustified actions that lead to death are generally considered to be murder.
Unjustified inactions that lead to death are generally held to be manslaughter.
Justified actions that lead to death are tragic.
Justified inactions that lead to death are unfortunate.
It is my opinion that shooting people at a gas station with an AR-15 bushmaster and aborting a fetus fall in the first category.
It is my opinion that bombing the hell out of Berlin fell under the third.
It is my opinion that starving homeless fall under the fourth.
You are, of course, welcome to hold the opinion that any of the above makes me a loon
-Peter -
Free Curriculum Project
I asked myself the same question. I couldn't find any such thing, so I whipped up a little website and started working on the first book. I have some basic ideas for a full-blown curriculum that I intend to clean up and use to seed a wiki.
The main thing that I hope to do is comb public domain works to create a complete set of copyleft (FDL) course materials that support a full (written) k-12 curriculum.
I haven't really built enough of a . . . kernel to make very good use of outside help, but if someone wants to talk more email me at the address on the site (not the
-Peter -
OSS-Leaders
I (being an alienated former project leader) have put together a mailing list I call OSS-Leaders.
I'm still trying to get it off the ground, but there are one or two guys you may have heard of on the list . . .
The idea is to provide a place for project leaders to exchange thoughts and ideas strictly with their peers. I hope to distill some of this discussion into some sort of "OSS Project Leadership HOWTO."
If you lead (or recently lead) an OSS project, check it out.
-Peter -
Project leadership.
I started a project that I call OSS-Leaders for OSS project leaders a few weeks ago. The idea is to create a place where OSS leaders can exchange ideas. It sounds like a simple idea, but when I was leading an OSS project and needed some advice from my peers I discovered that there really wasn't anything like this.
It is really just a (closed, moderated) mailing list right now, but I hope to distill some of the discussion into some sort of "OSS Leadership How-to" or something.
It is still in the preliminary stages, but we can't grow without members . . .
If you are the leader of an OSS project I hope you will check it out!
Feel free to mail me at my
-Peter
PS: I use "OSS" above because the project is about the process (as opposed to the philosophy). Truth be known I tend to be a "Free Software Guy" but the project is intended to be agnostic about the OSS/Free Software debate. -
Re:And you just noticed this phenomenon?
Obviously we have been seeing different media reports.
My impression of media's style over the last 8 years has been "Clinton/Gore fundraising scandal! (Of course everybody does it, so it's not that bad.)" The "main stream" media hasn't even been reporting on the way the justice department has given them a pass on questionable if not flat out criminal fundraiser after fundraiser. ("But it's okay, 'cause if it was a republican, his appointed justice department would turn a blind eye too.")
I hate to bring it up, but what about the sex scandal? Even if we ignore the bare-faced lying "(Any man would do it, and all men cheat. Besides, America doesn't even care, look at our polls!)" would the media have insisted that "America doesn't care" and that "it has nothing to do with the job" if it had been a high school principal fucking a 21 year old intern IN HIS OFFICE?
If you think so, you are clearly living in some form of altered reality.
Finally, it is plain as day to me that the media (armed with lovely quotes from NOW spokeswomen* saying how wonderful Hillary is for "standing by her man"** and how he is still a great president) did an ENORMOUS amount of spin-doctoring because he supports abortion.
I didn't hear anything about NOW condemning Bob Packwood or Bob Livingston's decisions to resign because PAST affairs had come to light.
So I must disagree with your statement, the "main stream" media has not printed anything "mean", his behavior has simply been SO outrageous that they have not been able to contain it.
-Peter
PS: The gloves reference was to boxing gloves vs. bare knuckles. It doesn't "smart" to be handled with bare hands.
PPS: Please don't fool yourself into believing that I am an "angry, hate filled conservative." This is a common trap of "modern"*** liberal thinking. I am quite accepting of other people's beliefs and opinions, but I am very intolerant (alert! P.C. blacklist word!) of emotional reactions (as yours clearly was) to factual, moral or ethical questions.
* I wonder if NOW uses affirmative action hiring polices to try to get a "representative number" of men on the payroll.
** Ever heard a so-called "women's libber" use that phrase before?
*** I consider myself to be a "Jeffersonian Liberal." That is the word liberal used in the sense of freedom, not generosity (with other people's money.) Most would call me a libertarian. This rant is clearly not going to end, so see http://peter.hutnick.com/freedom if you are interested in seeing it continue.
