I encourage you to practice! Suspicious people will always be suspicious, but less insane ones will realize what you're doing as long as you yourself feel good about it, too. So practice, or those who would terrorize you are winning:)
the thing about China was something along the lines of "while they've not offically admitted it as a mistake, they have internally". sounded like they'll try to steer away from it without losing face.
but I was really just listening to radio while doing something else, so who knows ^^ but it made/makes sense to me... it's pretty easy to get rid of people, much harder to create them =/
Contributing children towards Planet Earth is something that governments in general are going to have to discourage. At least one country on Earth already does.
If you're referring China, I've just heard someone on the BBC say recently that this policy has been silently dropped, since they NEED young people to have any chance to compete, say, with Indian technology etc.
The planet simply cannot sustain a growing population indefinitely.
Having less kids is not the only solution: not growing so old would be another one. Just sayin'.
Also, pointing out his rhetorical error is not an ad-hominem argument.
fair enough. but what the AC said, "you just lost all your credibility", to me kinda sounded like "because you said teabaggers, what you said was wrong" (which would be an ad-hominem). but yeah, that AC didn't really talk about ad-hominens, so that was kinda mixed up on my part. cheers:)
did I said you said that? I just said it's an ad-hominem. an AC implied it by saying "you just lost all your credibility". I should have replied to that post, but hey, I just wanted to point out this little fun fact and your post was wordier so I replied to that ^^
The only thing I did was point out his rhetorical fallacy, and indicate that through it he was damaging himself more than his opponent.
generally true, but does it apply to this case? he said "teabaggers" just like he said "obama fanboys", and AFTER making his arguments. he did not use "teabaggers" AS argument. I agree the post would have gained by wording it differently, but to say this makes his arguments more or less valid would be, as I said, an actual ad-hominem... "ad-hominem" is short for "ad-hominem argument", and that's not just any personal insult. if the utterance directed at the human is not an argument, it's not an ad-hominem argument.
I'd rather be smart than educated though, and to me the smart thing would seem to ignore ad-hominems, and evaluate the remaining arguments independently of them?
"what you said is false because you said teabaggers" is also an ad-hominem.
yes, they're sexy, but I wouldn't wish them on anybody. if women wanna sex me up they'll just have to tip toe in sneakers or something =P because I like women pretty AND smart, and I get most horny when I have a clean conscience. so there, that's my rational explanation why I don't like them.
I wouldn't ban them though, they are good indicators for, uhm, weakness*. just like wanting women to wear them is a sign of weakness in men.
it doesn't bother me, but it's a simple fact that I don't take women who wear them as seriously as those who don't. make of that what you will. being "sexy" is not all, it's nowhere enough, and the toys end their keepers should just go extinct already.
(* when gnutella came out, I tried to find Miriam Makeba's "Pata Pata".. but instead I found something of a girl punk band (I think) screaming something about high heels, the refrain being "kill me, kill me, I can't run away" or something like that hahah... I would give a lot to know the name of the band and the tune, just for nostalgias sake, so if that rings a bell anywhere...)
huh... so the post this is a reply to is at +4 funny, while this is off-topic? nah, if anything, it's the other way around... this is insightful, that joke about praying is off-topic, since it's just a completely unrelated jab at texas and/or christians.
(not posting AC because I don't believe in that ^^)
"The burden of proof is shifting to the defendant"
How so? You're implying they have been convicted as guilty of something because they could not prove otherwise, which isn't really the case. Your lots of words typing out that anecdote about drivers in New Mexico, and none to point out how that anecdote is connected to this case.
sounds you don't like something in that post but aren't able to address it. try again.
"When the population get buttfucked by the likes of the recording industry on a weekly basis it's not that much of a stretch to imagine how data like this could be misused if even more people gained access to it."
when I post something that doesn't speculate at ALL, my tinfoil hat is leaking, but when you say that because the recording industry fucks over people, those governments surely must do, which is not just speculation, but totally non-sequitur to boot, that is not ironic to you at all haha?
the recording industry = private enterprise. the OP seemed to imply that the government has evil agendas by definition, while private corporations are of course just fine...
so what you said actually kinda supports MY point, namely that law enforcement is job of the government and the government is at least potentially by us and for us, while corporations even by definition aren't.
Oh no, that evil government is at it again, hurting the butterflies made from love and light that are corporations....
"What has been created by this half century of massive corporate propaganda is what's called "anti-politics". So that anything that goes wrong, you blame the government. Well okay, there's plenty to blame the government about, but the government is the one institution that people can change... the one institution that you can affect without institutional change. That's exactly why all the anger and fear has been directed at the government. The government has a defect - it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect - they're pure tyrannies. So therefore you want to keep corporations invisible, and focus all anger on the government. So if you don't like something, you know, your wages are going down, you blame the government. Not blame the guys in the Fortune 500, because you don't read the Fortune 500. You just read what they tell you in the newspapers... all you know is that the bad government's doing something, so let's get mad at the government."
this isn't silly at all. if it wasn't made illegal, a lot of pretty sick things would be done openly pretty quickly. I guess lots of sick things can happen in underground labs either way (urrrgh), but the scale would be vastly different.
"And of course Flash content that was created specifically for a full-size, full-screen webpage (at 1024x768 or 1600x1200 resolutions, as examples) doesn't 'work' on a tiny 300-pixel cellphone browser - so stop whining about it and use a real computer to surf those sites."
Nah. It's much better to instead of using "sixteen million different web browsers" as you put it, to use one that doesn't suck balls. Then you can have content that looks as it should AND adapts to all sorts of media (not just different resolutions).
Taking the use of shitty browsers as given, but at the same time demanding to use "a real computer" to browse websites, that's just retarded. I'm sure the Neanderthals kicked and screamed a lot, too. That is all there is to say, and every second spent talking about Flash is a second not spent coding javascript ^^
"Not bad money. One year of work, and $100k-250k at the end of it."
you don't just have the money after that... it fucks up most people. citation: louis theroux ^^
even chicks who do the slutty act and dont get paid SHIT basically pay with their soul and character for it.. there is no way to make porn and not get harmed in the process, unless you're not much of a human to begin with. so yeah, if you're already fucked up you might as well get paid for it. otherwise, no, don't do it. that money is PEANUTS in the big scheme of life, and you're not going to spend it wisely, while losing the most precious thing one can have, a healthy sexuality and the ability to have a relationship.
Why is everybody so full of expectations of how a CMS should work?
Because we're all cooking our own and want to play experts. I know I do:D
We send links via email. These links prefill forms. We do not expect these links to be published.
Well, as long as they just prefill forms, there is no harm in that... but it kinda seemed at first as if a userid in the URL was enough to be logged in so to speak, and that would have been insane and must always be met with lots of patronizing advice!
I just wanted to know what the origin was of the link because it was garbled in a way that does not make sense. I asked about the origins because these garbled requests are very rare and I am security minded. Google doesn't care
Then make sure it is actually Google bot. If it's not (ie. something else is pretending to be google bot), I really would not care. I'm not saying that to treat you as an idiot, but because *I* never got anything but confusion out of trying to monitor/block bots. Maybe you're different, then good luck hehe. But me, I just make sure all the things that need to be locked are locked. I don't even bother banning IP's anymore, since the bandwith is neglible and it might lock out the occasional regular visitor. I guess you could say I gave up, and now I'm trying to spread my spirit of futility to you! ^^
Maybe it would make sense to move the tripwires "inside", so you don't monitor breakin attempts as much as successfull breakins? Just a random thought.
Do not treat me like an idiot, look at my id.
Granted, your first post I replied to, I didn't take you that seriously. Then I did. But now you say that? o_O (j/k)
Slashdot Mirror
I encourage you to practice! Suspicious people will always be suspicious, but less insane ones will realize what you're doing as long as you yourself feel good about it, too. So practice, or those who would terrorize you are winning :)
the thing about China was something along the lines of "while they've not offically admitted it as a mistake, they have internally". sounded like they'll try to steer away from it without losing face.
but I was really just listening to radio while doing something else, so who knows ^^ but it made/makes sense to me... it's pretty easy to get rid of people, much harder to create them =/
If you're referring China, I've just heard someone on the BBC say recently that this policy has been silently dropped, since they NEED young people to have any chance to compete, say, with Indian technology etc.
Having less kids is not the only solution: not growing so old would be another one. Just sayin'.
typing in all caps is not the only way to "holler" or be "loud" though.
Also, pointing out his rhetorical error is not an ad-hominem argument.
fair enough. but what the AC said, "you just lost all your credibility", to me kinda sounded like "because you said teabaggers, what you said was wrong" (which would be an ad-hominem). but yeah, that AC didn't really talk about ad-hominens, so that was kinda mixed up on my part. cheers :)
did I said you said that? I just said it's an ad-hominem. an AC implied it by saying "you just lost all your credibility". I should have replied to that post, but hey, I just wanted to point out this little fun fact and your post was wordier so I replied to that ^^
generally true, but does it apply to this case? he said "teabaggers" just like he said "obama fanboys", and AFTER making his arguments. he did not use "teabaggers" AS argument. I agree the post would have gained by wording it differently, but to say this makes his arguments more or less valid would be, as I said, an actual ad-hominem... "ad-hominem" is short for "ad-hominem argument", and that's not just any personal insult. if the utterance directed at the human is not an argument, it's not an ad-hominem argument.
mods are on crack is all. *shrugs*
yeah, that makes sense! I have another one:
what is the difference between a lemming and a lawyer?
a lemming has green hair and is just a bunch of pixels tall, while a lawyer very rarely has green hair, and isn't even measured in pixels!
I'd rather be smart than educated though, and to me the smart thing would seem to ignore ad-hominems, and evaluate the remaining arguments independently of them?
"what you said is false because you said teabaggers" is also an ad-hominem.
smartness and smugness go hand in hand, and for good reason... don't pout, download opera today!
smarter, maybe... but the smart ones use Opera. :>
yes, that's the one! thank you so much haha :)
"the toys end their keepers"
haha!
I'm Dr. Freud, and I approve of this typo.
that's pretty shitty comparisons though..
high heels make me feel bad for women, period.
yes, they're sexy, but I wouldn't wish them on anybody. if women wanna sex me up they'll just have to tip toe in sneakers or something =P because I like women pretty AND smart, and I get most horny when I have a clean conscience. so there, that's my rational explanation why I don't like them.
I wouldn't ban them though, they are good indicators for, uhm, weakness*. just like wanting women to wear them is a sign of weakness in men.
it doesn't bother me, but it's a simple fact that I don't take women who wear them as seriously as those who don't. make of that what you will. being "sexy" is not all, it's nowhere enough, and the toys end their keepers should just go extinct already.
(* when gnutella came out, I tried to find Miriam Makeba's "Pata Pata".. but instead I found something of a girl punk band (I think) screaming something about high heels, the refrain being "kill me, kill me, I can't run away" or something like that hahah... I would give a lot to know the name of the band and the tune, just for nostalgias sake, so if that rings a bell anywhere...)
huh... so the post this is a reply to is at +4 funny, while this is off-topic? nah, if anything, it's the other way around... this is insightful, that joke about praying is off-topic, since it's just a completely unrelated jab at texas and/or christians.
(not posting AC because I don't believe in that ^^)
What does what you said have to do with anything?
"The burden of proof is shifting to the defendant"
How so? You're implying they have been convicted as guilty of something because they could not prove otherwise, which isn't really the case. Your lots of words typing out that anecdote about drivers in New Mexico, and none to point out how that anecdote is connected to this case.
so you're basically saying you trust yourself less than some entity in the clouds? because government = people, google = shareholders...
if you distance yourself so much from government that it becomes something completely external to you, you're beyond help and beyond helping anyone.
I don't trust you. Really. (I'm speaking as a German citizen)
sounds you don't like something in that post but aren't able to address it. try again.
when I post something that doesn't speculate at ALL, my tinfoil hat is leaking, but when you say that because the recording industry fucks over people, those governments surely must do, which is not just speculation, but totally non-sequitur to boot, that is not ironic to you at all haha?
the recording industry = private enterprise. the OP seemed to imply that the government has evil agendas by definition, while private corporations are of course just fine...
so what you said actually kinda supports MY point, namely that law enforcement is job of the government and the government is at least potentially by us and for us, while corporations even by definition aren't.
so yeah, try again.
Oh no, that evil government is at it again, hurting the butterflies made from love and light that are corporations....
"What has been created by this half century of massive corporate propaganda is what's called "anti-politics". So that anything that goes wrong, you blame the government. Well okay, there's plenty to blame the government about, but the government is the one institution that people can change... the one institution that you can affect without institutional change. That's exactly why all the anger and fear has been directed at the government. The government has a defect - it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect - they're pure tyrannies. So therefore you want to keep corporations invisible, and focus all anger on the government. So if you don't like something, you know, your wages are going down, you blame the government. Not blame the guys in the Fortune 500, because you don't read the Fortune 500. You just read what they tell you in the newspapers... all you know is that the bad government's doing something, so let's get mad at the government."
--- Noam Chomsky
this isn't silly at all. if it wasn't made illegal, a lot of pretty sick things would be done openly pretty quickly. I guess lots of sick things can happen in underground labs either way (urrrgh), but the scale would be vastly different.
Nah. It's much better to instead of using "sixteen million different web browsers" as you put it, to use one that doesn't suck balls. Then you can have content that looks as it should AND adapts to all sorts of media (not just different resolutions).
Taking the use of shitty browsers as given, but at the same time demanding to use "a real computer" to browse websites, that's just retarded. I'm sure the Neanderthals kicked and screamed a lot, too. That is all there is to say, and every second spent talking about Flash is a second not spent coding javascript ^^
yes, as opposed to any random bots pretending to be.
"Not bad money. One year of work, and $100k-250k at the end of it."
you don't just have the money after that... it fucks up most people. citation: louis theroux ^^
even chicks who do the slutty act and dont get paid SHIT basically pay with their soul and character for it.. there is no way to make porn and not get harmed in the process, unless you're not much of a human to begin with. so yeah, if you're already fucked up you might as well get paid for it. otherwise, no, don't do it. that money is PEANUTS in the big scheme of life, and you're not going to spend it wisely, while losing the most precious thing one can have, a healthy sexuality and the ability to have a relationship.
not just bad money, very bad money.
Because we're all cooking our own and want to play experts. I know I do :D
Well, as long as they just prefill forms, there is no harm in that... but it kinda seemed at first as if a userid in the URL was enough to be logged in so to speak, and that would have been insane and must always be met with lots of patronizing advice!
Then make sure it is actually Google bot. If it's not (ie. something else is pretending to be google bot), I really would not care. I'm not saying that to treat you as an idiot, but because *I* never got anything but confusion out of trying to monitor/block bots. Maybe you're different, then good luck hehe. But me, I just make sure all the things that need to be locked are locked. I don't even bother banning IP's anymore, since the bandwith is neglible and it might lock out the occasional regular visitor. I guess you could say I gave up, and now I'm trying to spread my spirit of futility to you! ^^
Maybe it would make sense to move the tripwires "inside", so you don't monitor breakin attempts as much as successfull breakins? Just a random thought.
Granted, your first post I replied to, I didn't take you that seriously. Then I did. But now you say that? o_O (j/k)
I'm not sure I follow, since
"[The ability to weigh the pros and cons of each individual action] breeds the worst sort of psychotics"
doesn't make any shred of sense.