I don't know, I see lots of guys in wheel chairs doing things like racing and marathons and hiking and cycling with hand bikes. Lot's of can do attitude. How does that relate to the roommate who can't cycle because of a fake hip thing? I don't know. How does the roommate with the fake hip relate to my recommendation that the guy cycle to work? I don't know.
How do you know I'm young? I'm clearly thoughtless, I'll give you that.
Sometime I wished I lived 13 miles from my work so I could get a longer ride in. Alas, I only live 5 from work, so I have to be content with doing a sprint workout - 25mph + -rather than a more sustained aerobic cycle work out at a less sweaty pace. Coworkers can just suck it.
Yes, go ahead and ask the obvious, I'll humor you.
The Blade Runner soundtrack is by Vangelis, and it stands on its own quite well. You may be too young and immature to realize that the technology involved in art changes, but that change doesn't diminish the value of the earlier art. You must be a real hoot to watch Casablanca with.
Actually, consistent does not mean universal. Anyway, here is your original quote:
Emacs and vi are not only inconsistent with each other, but with everything else, too.
Which is just proves you are full of shit and like to move the goal posts in your arguments.
I have met many people who use vim and emacs on Windows. Of course, you're the expert, so perhaps I just ran into the statistical anomaly. You're the expert here, I suppose.
The only nerd I see in this thread is you in your hilarious crusade against powerful text editors that a) have the stood the test of time, b) are constantly improving, c) exceedingly flexible, and d) used my millions. Tilt at windmills much? Keep fighting the good fight, I'm enjoying it. Maybe if you bitch and moan long enough, all of us stupid vim and emacs users will see how unproductive we are being even though we feel very productive. Lol.
Re:Great editor but the C parser sucks
on
TextMate
·
· Score: 1
Wasn't implicit "return 0" from main added to C99? It's definitely in C++.
Bullshit. Emacs-like bindings exist in all kinds of apps built with readline. Vi binding are also supported in readline to some extent, in zsh quite well, and other stuff. I can get binding for vi in mail clients, emacs keystrokes in ui widgets, both in text-based web browsers. It's certainly not universal, but it doesn't need to be to prove that you are full of shit.
HCI experts might know lots of stuff, but they don't know everything, and they've certainly come up with some pretty shitty ideas in the past. Also, they tend to focus on new users, not those who use editors all day long. There are a million editors out there that follow you and your HCI philosophy, but over and over again, EMACS, vi/vim, and other powerful non-HCI editors are chosen by programmers and people that work with text files all day long. Wonder why? I guess we're all stupid and we should get with you and your program?
Re:I can't feel any responsiveness improvements.
on
Gnome 2.18 Released
·
· Score: 1
Evolution->exchange access works pretty well for me, too. Where do you get your data?
How should I know what you have in your government ?
You can't unless you ask or assume, either of which would probably be safe in the context of this conversation. Unless you're some kind of moron (how should know you're not a moron?). In any case, can you tell me what governments in the world don't preside over the single official definition of marriage relevant to their countries?
If you don't care about the government or whatever religion making your marriage "official", then what is the problem here ?
I think the issue is that the type of marriage conferred by the government includes legal and financial benefits, yet the criteria for defining marriage is religious (and cultural). That's why. Did you not know this?
Official + religious authority? What does that mean, do we have an official religion in our government?
You see, you've stumbled upon the bulk of the problem.
I don't think your definition of marriage is very good. There are are at least 3 aspects of marriage: cultural, religious, and governemt/official. The first two are tied together but also independent. Marriage to the Catholics doesn't mean the same think as marriage to the Hindi, but they both recognize the cultural context of the others' marriage independent of the alien religion. The third aspect of marriage involves legal ramifications. These vary be government and time, so can hardly be the defining characteristic. Government endorsement can be better though of as the civil union part, and is clearly independent of the first two aspects of marriage.
The concept of marriage (culturally and/or religiously) can live outside the domain of government, your objects not withstanding, quite easily. There are other culturally accepted and defined relationships that exist without the endorsement of government, after all (e.g. engagement).
I like the constitution too, but using the GP is right that it can't be used logically in an analysis of libertarianism. At least not as an a priori truth as was attempted by the GGP.
If given the option in a ballot box, I would oppose same sex marriage, but I don't believe it is a public poliscy issue. and that's a huge difference.
Ironically, I believe your stance on this does not server your position. Allowing same-sex marriage is the first step in getting the government out of the marriage business. As long as there is some religious ownership of the marriage idea regulated by the government, marriage will stay in the domain of the government. I guess step 1.5 would be to transform the concept regulated by the gov to "civil union".
Done right, running is excellent for your body. The problem is that people go out and start running with poor style or too much on hard concrete after 20 years of not running at all. The human body is designed to run. Running is very good at maintaining and building bone strength in adults. Running is a great way to lose weight and maintain a trim physique. You don't see serious runners with love handles or beer bellies. You can run anywhere, you need very little equipment, no expensive facilities required.
This message brought to you by an avid runner and the national running awareness league.
Slashdot Mirror
How do you know I'm young? I'm clearly thoughtless, I'll give you that.
I've seen guys cycle with 1 leg, so your hip, fake-hip, exception-to-the-rule, rules-the-roost roommate can just go suck it.
Yes, go ahead and ask the obvious, I'll humor you.
If it only takes you 8.5 minutes to drive to work, you should be riding your bike. Seriously, stop destroying the planet. :)
Isn't all music synthetic?
Why don't you take a few breaths before pronouncing the death of rpm?
In real life, when people die, that is part of the "plot".
Are you trying to tell me Uranium is a fossil fuel?
Also, part of the safety comes from everyone driving the save direction.
Oh, snap!! Wow, you are really sticking it to the "nerds" in this thread. You go girl.
Actually, consistent does not mean universal. Anyway, here is your original quote:
Which is just proves you are full of shit and like to move the goal posts in your arguments.
I have met many people who use vim and emacs on Windows. Of course, you're the expert, so perhaps I just ran into the statistical anomaly. You're the expert here, I suppose.
The only nerd I see in this thread is you in your hilarious crusade against powerful text editors that a) have the stood the test of time, b) are constantly improving, c) exceedingly flexible, and d) used my millions. Tilt at windmills much? Keep fighting the good fight, I'm enjoying it. Maybe if you bitch and moan long enough, all of us stupid vim and emacs users will see how unproductive we are being even though we feel very productive. Lol.
Wasn't implicit "return 0" from main added to C99? It's definitely in C++.
HCI experts might know lots of stuff, but they don't know everything, and they've certainly come up with some pretty shitty ideas in the past. Also, they tend to focus on new users, not those who use editors all day long. There are a million editors out there that follow you and your HCI philosophy, but over and over again, EMACS, vi/vim, and other powerful non-HCI editors are chosen by programmers and people that work with text files all day long. Wonder why? I guess we're all stupid and we should get with you and your program?
Evolution->exchange access works pretty well for me, too. Where do you get your data?
You can't unless you ask or assume, either of which would probably be safe in the context of this conversation. Unless you're some kind of moron (how should know you're not a moron?). In any case, can you tell me what governments in the world don't preside over the single official definition of marriage relevant to their countries?
I think the issue is that the type of marriage conferred by the government includes legal and financial benefits, yet the criteria for defining marriage is religious (and cultural). That's why. Did you not know this?
You see, you've stumbled upon the bulk of the problem.
I don't think your definition of marriage is very good. There are are at least 3 aspects of marriage: cultural, religious, and governemt/official. The first two are tied together but also independent. Marriage to the Catholics doesn't mean the same think as marriage to the Hindi, but they both recognize the cultural context of the others' marriage independent of the alien religion. The third aspect of marriage involves legal ramifications. These vary be government and time, so can hardly be the defining characteristic. Government endorsement can be better though of as the civil union part, and is clearly independent of the first two aspects of marriage.
The concept of marriage (culturally and/or religiously) can live outside the domain of government, your objects not withstanding, quite easily. There are other culturally accepted and defined relationships that exist without the endorsement of government, after all (e.g. engagement).
How does one go about doing "Prohibit coërcion"?
I like the constitution too, but using the GP is right that it can't be used logically in an analysis of libertarianism. At least not as an a priori truth as was attempted by the GGP.
Ironically, I believe your stance on this does not server your position. Allowing same-sex marriage is the first step in getting the government out of the marriage business. As long as there is some religious ownership of the marriage idea regulated by the government, marriage will stay in the domain of the government. I guess step 1.5 would be to transform the concept regulated by the gov to "civil union".
Way to ignore his entire post and focus on one sentence fragment. His arguments were interesting and not what you're "refuting".
"Eeeh equals em see squared"
This message brought to you by an avid runner and the national running awareness league.
Psst - Einstein wants to have a word with you.