We've been living in a place where trees covered our view of the sky, but the apartment we moved into back in April has a PERFECT view of the sky out on the balcony. Looks like it's time to start stocking up on Bawls, peeled carrots, and a new tripod!
That's the kind of corporate thinking you're pushing.
After re-reading my OP a few times, I can see how that could be grokked from what I said...but I assure you, those types of practices weren't what I was referring to.
Does anyone know if there is hard evidence (heh) proving this guy's guilt? It would be a real shame for this to be a false accusation that destroys a man's career...
As I said to another poster who responded to me, people seem to always associate "concentrate on profit" with "being a dick"...the two are not mutually exclusive. In fact, the more you focus on customers, the more your profit will increase (in theory, at least).
Making as much money as possible isn't inherently bad...it's all in how you go about it.
Yes true. Profit should be the highest priority for business. Don't mistake profit for bad business practices...most companies would likely make even more money if they treated their customers right and listened to their concerns.
Again, you don't have to be an asshole to make good money...despite the common stigma.
...while I abhor some of Google's actions in recent years, they are in a simultaneously fortunate and unfortunate position. They are fortunate in that they have gotten where they are based on their own merits, including their ability to navigate the market with ease and giving people what they want.
They are unfortunate in that they are such a huge business; while customer and user satisfaction is still at the top of their list, nothing will ever be a higher priority than profit (as it should be with a business). This causes them to get sloppy, though...
I'm glad to see they are having at least some form of internal dialogue about just how greedy they should actually be ("greed is good", after all). This indicates that they are at least aware of the recent downturn in the public's perception of them.
It's all a scam...those damn liberals are going to use the Canonical Census information to take away your access to the software repository! They're also going to post pictures of your desktop so less creative people can copy it! Think of that...less creative people copping your style. Tell the bastards NO! Damn the census!
Again, you're failing. The points are about why people are pissed. People are pissed because of the reasons I listed. You disagree. People are still pissed.
Wait...so first you say you dare someone to prove you wrong, and now you say no one can prove you wrong because you are simply stating facts...yet presenting them as an opinion? Nice. Oh, and thanks for pointing out that my own thoughts on the matter have no bearing on people that don't even know I exist. I never could have figured that out on my own.
You have tried to prove me wrong by defending the appointees with every liberal ounce of your body.
First off, I have no emotional investment in your original conversation. I was responding to you because::gasp:: that's what people do in a discussion forum.
Secondly, I've been a registered independent since the day I turned 18. I'm one of those people who thinks you should be able to own a gun while getting government-issued single-payer insurance. But hey, keep on assuming things about people you don't know. I've been called a crazy conservative and a flaming liberal, depending on the topic...so I must be doing something right.
The fact that you are completely retarded
Oh, so that's a fact? That whole "not knowing me" thing applies here as well. But hey, no problem...I understand.
Obama's appointments are both terrible. Sotomayor so far is about par for the course for the SC, and the latest dog is abysmal.
To play devil's advocate here, in what ways from a professional point of view, specifically, are they terrible? What have they done that invalidates them as being up for the job? Remember, talking points don't count...give me something that isn't being touted around by the news networks.
and choose to wipe Obama's ass with your tongue
Ah, I see. Nothing meaningful to say in response to what I posted, so you resort to insults. Again...nice.
You can rationalize her bullshit all you want,
No rationalization, I was merely explaining it from a point of view you obviously hadn't considered. You do know people have views different than yours...don't you?
but what she did with regards to the ROTC was illegal
I completely agree.
and wrong
I completely disagree.
How she handled the confirmation hearings was hypocritical, condescending
Again, you yourself quoted her as saying that such hearings were a joke. How was it hypocritical to react the same way she essentially said she would?
abhorring with regards to respect of the office
Oh, right...her calling a spade a spade by talking smack about a process that you yourself had said bad things about is abhorrent and disrespectful...but I take it you weren't being disrespectful when talking about...what were your exact words? Oh right. You said:
Yeah. Calling someone who serves on the bench a "fossilized fuck" that "shuffles off the bench" when they retire...that's not disrespectful at all.::eye roll::
The fact is plenty of people are pissed for the reasons I stated. You can defend her all you want, that doesn't change the fact that people disagree with you, don't like her actions and track record, and are pissed about it.
You said prove your points wrong, so I posted some detailed thoughts challenging what you said. In response, you didn't reply to any of the points I made; all you did was tell me that I'm wrong.
Glad to know your conversational skills are way up there.
She broke the law in banning the ROTC while continuing to take government money. For whatever reason, however rationalized, she abused her power to spit in the face of the law.
First, I'd like to point out that she didn't continue to take it...she continued to receive it. Shouldn't you be mad at the fact that the federal government continued "sending" her checks? I don't think I've ever actually heard people say that...they're all just pissed off that she kept taking the money without ever mentioning the fact that it was still being sent to her.
On another note, one could also say Presidents have abused their power by breaking the law and applying wiretaps to citizens communications without a warrant...but National Security is always an acceptable rationalization, right?
I don't think any of them cared that I did it one hand vs two hands...they just cared that I did it quickly. Being able to unhook a bra while having the other hand free to do...uh...other things was nice though:)
Of course, the danger of trying to do it with one hand was if you screwed up or if they had a really wonky bra, suddenly you had to bring your other hand into the equation. That was impossible to do without looking like a moron. If you already started with two hands, that's fine...but if you started with one and ended with two, that meant you thought you were cooler than you actually were -_-;;
You gotta do what I did in 8th grade...find a girl who wanted to learn how to unzip a fly with one hand, and was willing to let you practice taking her bra off with one hand.
I haven't seen her in well over a decade, but I hope her training paid off. I know mine did!
I think the point is that since, in addition to all those people, someone like Hawking is saying it as well just adds credence to the idea. No one is claiming that Hawking invented the idea; they're just pointing out that Hawking is one of the many who follow this particular line of thinking.
We either leave this planet together, or we die on it divided. I think the greed inherent in human nature will prevent us from ever getting organized enough to leave this planet for another.
This actually kinda reminds me of a conversation we had last night....we watched the original V miniseries, and were talking about how stupid it was that they allowed the aliens into factories around the world simultaneously instead of just a factory or two at a time...but then, if they did that, countries would argue over who got to host them first.::shakes head:: stupid human beings...
So you don't have to worry about your app running horrible on certain phones.
True, but developing for Android vs. iOS means you don't have to worry about being bitch-slapped by Apple. It's almost like a cruel joke...a way for them to assert their power. "We know you have no choice but to develop for us...and we're going to make that suck. Why? Because we can, that's why."
Really? They could? Such an annoying, common mistake...they couldn't care less about flash. If they could care less, don't you think that they would?/wordusagenazi
"Would everyone please rise for the presentation of our national colors"
Oh! Oh I like that! Oh yeah! Come to the place where the tropical breezes blow Come to the coolest place I know The people are so great But really there's only me And that means I'm so great And also there's The Cheat Oh there's The Cheat! The place where the tropical breezes blow The Cheat! In the coolest place I know The one's are always cold And parties last all night And probably lots of chocolate And population tire POPULATION TIREEEE!!!
People were pissed because she was phoning it in with text book answers to text book questions, after having called Supreme Court nomination hearings a pointless joke.
So you're saying she was half-assing her response to half-assed questions that, in context, have nothing to do with "truly" being on the Supreme Court? What's wrong with that?
People were pissed because despite the fact that in the hearings she was asked about her opinions on important matters, she made a joke of the process and never answered them.
Wait...I thought people didn't want her to judge based on opinions. If you don't want her to judge based on her opinion, why does it matter what her opinion is? I'm still surprised that people weren't happy that many of her answers were textbook answers. Textbook answers are the exact opposite of bringing your opinion into your actions.
People were pissed because we know for a fact that this woman hates the first amendment
Fact, eh? A fact means there is proof. Where is your proof, beyond your opinion?
and has no qualms about doing things outside of her legal power that suit her political views, such as banning the ROTC from her campus but still taking in that sweet, sweet, government money.
First off, they weren't banned from the campus, just the career office. Secondly, while I agree that she went about it the wrong way, let's ignore the law for a moment and look at this issue through reality glasses: it's a freakin' law school, filled with people that either got scholarships or live a life of privilege through rich families. Just how much successful recruiting do you think the military would do in a place like that? That being said, her reasons (at least those that she publicly voiced) seem fair to me:
She didn't feel the military had a place at the career office because they essentially discriminated against an entire group of people...discrimination that, I'd like to point out, would be illegal in a private company.
The woman is a liberal troll.
Tell me...is your knee bothering you?
The last appointment Obama put up is a sexist and a racist. But at least she's shown that she can keep it under control when doing her job. (Or at least as well as the other sexists, racists, trolls, etc. on the bench - both conservative and liberal.)
How do you figure? Have you talked to her personally? Have you seen her attending clan rallies? Have you seen her saying men are useless?
The bottom line is that the Supreme Court is a fucking joke. When one of the fossilized fucks shuffles off the bench, it's an opportunity for some sanity to be injected into our lives. But that never fucking happens.
I wouldn't go so far as to call the Supreme Court a joke, but I agree with the rest of that statement. Every time there is a nomination, if the nominee has the same letter after their name as a politician, they are the most perfect candidate. If they have a different letter, they are worthless and will destroy the court...reality be damned.
To me, she didn't have trouble answering it. It seemed like her response was essentially "this is a pointless question, because a law like that would never reach the Supreme Court. Please try to stay on topic."
From that perspective, I gotta say I agree with her. That being said, she still went on to explain the reasoning behind her initial answer:
But I think that the question of whether it's a dumb law is different from whether the question of whether it's constitutional. And I think that the courts would be wrong to strike down the laws that they think are senseless, just because they are senseless.
Then, when the guy repeated his question again, as soon as she started to answer, he interrupted her. I'm sorry dude, but if I'm being interviewed for a job, you ask me a question that isn't realistically possible, I respond that it's essentially a question that has no bearing on the interview at hand, you repeat your question, and then interrupt me when I try to respond...yeah, I wouldn't really be inclined answer anything else you asked me, on topic or not.
Slashdot Mirror
We've been living in a place where trees covered our view of the sky, but the apartment we moved into back in April has a PERFECT view of the sky out on the balcony. Looks like it's time to start stocking up on Bawls, peeled carrots, and a new tripod!
Seriously? This is getting a bit insane now.
At this point, why don't they just write (or print) these things with dissappearing ink? It's not like they look at it again once it gets voted on.
"Wait, we aren't supposed to do this...isn't this against the law since we passed ::insert random bill::"
"What the hell are you talking about?"
That's the kind of corporate thinking you're pushing.
After re-reading my OP a few times, I can see how that could be grokked from what I said...but I assure you, those types of practices weren't what I was referring to.
Does anyone know if there is hard evidence (heh) proving this guy's guilt? It would be a real shame for this to be a false accusation that destroys a man's career...
As I said to another poster who responded to me, people seem to always associate "concentrate on profit" with "being a dick"...the two are not mutually exclusive. In fact, the more you focus on customers, the more your profit will increase (in theory, at least).
Making as much money as possible isn't inherently bad...it's all in how you go about it.
Yes true. Profit should be the highest priority for business. Don't mistake profit for bad business practices...most companies would likely make even more money if they treated their customers right and listened to their concerns.
Again, you don't have to be an asshole to make good money...despite the common stigma.
...while I abhor some of Google's actions in recent years, they are in a simultaneously fortunate and unfortunate position. They are fortunate in that they have gotten where they are based on their own merits, including their ability to navigate the market with ease and giving people what they want.
They are unfortunate in that they are such a huge business; while customer and user satisfaction is still at the top of their list, nothing will ever be a higher priority than profit (as it should be with a business). This causes them to get sloppy, though...
I'm glad to see they are having at least some form of internal dialogue about just how greedy they should actually be ("greed is good", after all). This indicates that they are at least aware of the recent downturn in the public's perception of them.
It's all a scam...those damn liberals are going to use the Canonical Census information to take away your access to the software repository! They're also going to post pictures of your desktop so less creative people can copy it! Think of that...less creative people copping your style. Tell the bastards NO! Damn the census!
Again, you're failing.
The points are about why people are pissed.
People are pissed because of the reasons I listed.
You disagree.
People are still pissed.
Wait...so first you say you dare someone to prove you wrong, and now you say no one can prove you wrong because you are simply stating facts...yet presenting them as an opinion? Nice. Oh, and thanks for pointing out that my own thoughts on the matter have no bearing on people that don't even know I exist. I never could have figured that out on my own.
You have tried to prove me wrong by defending the appointees with every liberal ounce of your body.
First off, I have no emotional investment in your original conversation. I was responding to you because ::gasp:: that's what people do in a discussion forum.
Secondly, I've been a registered independent since the day I turned 18. I'm one of those people who thinks you should be able to own a gun while getting government-issued single-payer insurance. But hey, keep on assuming things about people you don't know. I've been called a crazy conservative and a flaming liberal, depending on the topic...so I must be doing something right.
The fact that you are completely retarded
Oh, so that's a fact? That whole "not knowing me" thing applies here as well. But hey, no problem...I understand.
Obama's appointments are both terrible. Sotomayor so far is about par for the course for the SC, and the latest dog is abysmal.
To play devil's advocate here, in what ways from a professional point of view, specifically, are they terrible? What have they done that invalidates them as being up for the job? Remember, talking points don't count...give me something that isn't being touted around by the news networks.
and choose to wipe Obama's ass with your tongue
Ah, I see. Nothing meaningful to say in response to what I posted, so you resort to insults. Again...nice.
You can rationalize her bullshit all you want,
No rationalization, I was merely explaining it from a point of view you obviously hadn't considered. You do know people have views different than yours...don't you?
but what she did with regards to the ROTC was illegal
I completely agree.
and wrong
I completely disagree.
How she handled the confirmation hearings was hypocritical, condescending
Again, you yourself quoted her as saying that such hearings were a joke. How was it hypocritical to react the same way she essentially said she would?
abhorring with regards to respect of the office
Oh, right...her calling a spade a spade by talking smack about a process that you yourself had said bad things about is abhorrent and disrespectful...but I take it you weren't being disrespectful when talking about...what were your exact words? Oh right. You said:
The bottom line is that the Supreme Court is a fucking joke. When one of the fossilized fucks shuffles off the bench, it's an opportunity for some sanity to be injected into our lives. But that never fucking happens.
Yeah. Calling someone who serves on the bench a "fossilized fuck" that "shuffles off the bench" when they retire...that's not disrespectful at all. ::eye roll::
and totally expected.
Then why are you raging about it?
I thought Ultima Online was unforgiving back in the day...jeebus.
Lots of fail there, all you did was defend her.
The fact is plenty of people are pissed for the reasons I stated. You can defend her all you want, that doesn't change the fact that people disagree with you, don't like her actions and track record, and are pissed about it.
You said prove your points wrong, so I posted some detailed thoughts challenging what you said. In response, you didn't reply to any of the points I made; all you did was tell me that I'm wrong.
Glad to know your conversational skills are way up there.
She broke the law in banning the ROTC while continuing to take government money. For whatever reason, however rationalized, she abused her power to spit in the face of the law.
First, I'd like to point out that she didn't continue to take it...she continued to receive it. Shouldn't you be mad at the fact that the federal government continued "sending" her checks? I don't think I've ever actually heard people say that...they're all just pissed off that she kept taking the money without ever mentioning the fact that it was still being sent to her.
On another note, one could also say Presidents have abused their power by breaking the law and applying wiretaps to citizens communications without a warrant...but National Security is always an acceptable rationalization, right?
I don't think any of them cared that I did it one hand vs two hands...they just cared that I did it quickly. Being able to unhook a bra while having the other hand free to do...uh...other things was nice though :)
Of course, the danger of trying to do it with one hand was if you screwed up or if they had a really wonky bra, suddenly you had to bring your other hand into the equation. That was impossible to do without looking like a moron. If you already started with two hands, that's fine...but if you started with one and ended with two, that meant you thought you were cooler than you actually were -_-;;
Tip: if true, that girl back then just wanted to get in your fly, you lucky son of a gun. Sorry if the news is a little late
I was fairly oblivious back then... till very much "in-training", lol
Girls have trousers of their own and can practice opening a fly without assistance.
She always said that it wasn't the same when she did it to her own. ::shrug:: I wasn't gonna argue with her, know what I mean?
You gotta do what I did in 8th grade...find a girl who wanted to learn how to unzip a fly with one hand, and was willing to let you practice taking her bra off with one hand.
I haven't seen her in well over a decade, but I hope her training paid off. I know mine did!
I think the point is that since, in addition to all those people, someone like Hawking is saying it as well just adds credence to the idea. No one is claiming that Hawking invented the idea; they're just pointing out that Hawking is one of the many who follow this particular line of thinking.
We either leave this planet together, or we die on it divided. I think the greed inherent in human nature will prevent us from ever getting organized enough to leave this planet for another.
This actually kinda reminds me of a conversation we had last night....we watched the original V miniseries, and were talking about how stupid it was that they allowed the aliens into factories around the world simultaneously instead of just a factory or two at a time...but then, if they did that, countries would argue over who got to host them first. ::shakes head:: stupid human beings...
So you don't have to worry about your app running horrible on certain phones.
True, but developing for Android vs. iOS means you don't have to worry about being bitch-slapped by Apple. It's almost like a cruel joke...a way for them to assert their power. "We know you have no choice but to develop for us...and we're going to make that suck. Why? Because we can, that's why."
and most could probably care less about flash
Really? They could? Such an annoying, common mistake...they couldn't care less about flash. If they could care less, don't you think that they would? /wordusagenazi
Based on the way Apple has talked about flash, I guess people's iPhones are just going to explode.
"Would everyone please rise for the presentation of our national colors"
Oh!
Oh I like that!
Oh yeah!
Come to the place where the tropical breezes blow
Come to the coolest place I know
The people are so great
But really there's only me
And that means I'm so great
And also there's The Cheat
Oh there's The Cheat!
The place where the tropical breezes blow
The Cheat!
In the coolest place I know
The one's are always cold
And parties last all night
And probably lots of chocolate
And population tire
POPULATION TIREEEE!!!
They are mostly lower-budget small studio affairs, but Big Fish Games has an excellent selection of old-school-style adventure games.
Prove any of my points wrong. I dare you.
OK, I'll bite.
People were pissed because she was phoning it in with text book answers to text book questions, after having called Supreme Court nomination hearings a pointless joke.
So you're saying she was half-assing her response to half-assed questions that, in context, have nothing to do with "truly" being on the Supreme Court? What's wrong with that?
People were pissed because despite the fact that in the hearings she was asked about her opinions on important matters, she made a joke of the process and never answered them.
Wait...I thought people didn't want her to judge based on opinions. If you don't want her to judge based on her opinion, why does it matter what her opinion is? I'm still surprised that people weren't happy that many of her answers were textbook answers. Textbook answers are the exact opposite of bringing your opinion into your actions.
People were pissed because we know for a fact that this woman hates the first amendment
Fact, eh? A fact means there is proof. Where is your proof, beyond your opinion?
and has no qualms about doing things outside of her legal power that suit her political views, such as banning the ROTC from her campus but still taking in that sweet, sweet, government money.
First off, they weren't banned from the campus, just the career office. Secondly, while I agree that she went about it the wrong way, let's ignore the law for a moment and look at this issue through reality glasses: it's a freakin' law school, filled with people that either got scholarships or live a life of privilege through rich families. Just how much successful recruiting do you think the military would do in a place like that? That being said, her reasons (at least those that she publicly voiced) seem fair to me:
"I abhor the military's discriminatory recruitment policy. The importance of the military to our society -- and the extraordinary service that members of the military provide to all the rest of us -- makes this discrimination more, not less, repugnant. The military's policy deprives many men and women of courage and character from having the opportunity to serve their country in the greatest way possible. This is a profound wrong -- a moral injustice of the first order. And it is a wrong that tears at the fabric of our own community, because some of our members cannot, while others can, devote their professional careers to their country."
She didn't feel the military had a place at the career office because they essentially discriminated against an entire group of people...discrimination that, I'd like to point out, would be illegal in a private company.
The woman is a liberal troll.
Tell me...is your knee bothering you?
The last appointment Obama put up is a sexist and a racist. But at least she's shown that she can keep it under control when doing her job. (Or at least as well as the other sexists, racists, trolls, etc. on the bench - both conservative and liberal.)
How do you figure? Have you talked to her personally? Have you seen her attending clan rallies? Have you seen her saying men are useless?
The bottom line is that the Supreme Court is a fucking joke. When one of the fossilized fucks shuffles off the bench, it's an opportunity for some sanity to be injected into our lives. But that never fucking happens.
I wouldn't go so far as to call the Supreme Court a joke, but I agree with the rest of that statement. Every time there is a nomination, if the nominee has the same letter after their name as a politician, they are the most perfect candidate. If they have a different letter, they are worthless and will destroy the court...reality be damned.
Really? Her entire answer was "I don't know"? Got any proof of that?
Thank you, I appreciate it!
To me, she didn't have trouble answering it. It seemed like her response was essentially "this is a pointless question, because a law like that would never reach the Supreme Court. Please try to stay on topic."
From that perspective, I gotta say I agree with her. That being said, she still went on to explain the reasoning behind her initial answer:
But I think that the question of whether it's a dumb law is different from whether the question of whether it's constitutional. And I think that the courts would be wrong to strike down the laws that they think are senseless, just because they are senseless.
Then, when the guy repeated his question again, as soon as she started to answer, he interrupted her. I'm sorry dude, but if I'm being interviewed for a job, you ask me a question that isn't realistically possible, I respond that it's essentially a question that has no bearing on the interview at hand, you repeat your question, and then interrupt me when I try to respond...yeah, I wouldn't really be inclined answer anything else you asked me, on topic or not.