Minor quibble, but please note when a link is potentially NSFW. That's probably not the sort of thing most of us want to be clicking on from our typical/.-reading environment.
I didn't say there was anything wrong with is - did I? Reading comprehension, get some.
It's because I have reading comprehension that I was able to see you heavily implied that there was a problem with this.
The grandparent specifically states that the thoughts interfere with his work performance, which implies they don't go in one ear and out the other. Reading comprehension, get some.
Right back at you. The grandparent, to a person with actual reading comprehension skills, seems to be making a joke about that more than he's being serious.
Even if he keeps his thoughts to himself - his inability to control them implies an incomplete ability to control his behavior.
Bullshit. Nothing about ability to control thoughts implies ability to control behavior. Behavior is far, far, far simpler to control than thoughts, which require rigorous discipline if you want to keep them out. On the other hand, if the OP's parents taught him basic self-control (and it would seem they did, otherwise he'd be posting from jail after killing the first person he got mad at), controlling behavior is trivial. You just don't do it.
Way to not only be an ass, but an incorrect ass at that. The vast majority of men have lascivious thoughts toward attractive women they're around at some point... that's natural. As long as you aren't dwelling on it, or harassing those women, there's absolutely nothing wrong with it. It's just like any other thought that goes in one ear, and out the other.
The suggestion that this is the source of the GP's trouble with women is laughable as well, since, presumably, he has the good manners to keep these thoughts to himself, like most men do. Again, if you keep it to yourself, no one is going to care (or even know, for that matter). Women aren't the damn thought police, they don't sit around judging you by your unspoken urges (or if they do, it's because they're bitches who make assumptions and judge you by that).
Finally, at no point in the GP did he "blame" the women he's around for "forcing" him to have lascivious thoughts. He merely observed that being around them causes him to have lascivious thoughts, and that it makes things more difficult for him... which is 100% true. There is no blame in that statement, just fact.
MAC addresses are indeed trivial to spoof, but is it necessarily trivial to figure out what addresses are on the "allowed" list? I would think this would be the part that would make MAC filtering useful.
I like iTunes specifically because it doesn't waste my time with themes and skins and color choices.
If you don't want to skin your software, use the defaults. There is no increase in usability or value by not providing the option.
How many times has an attractive woman looked at the customized UI for your software and thought "Wow. There's a guy I'd like to get it on with". (Answer: Zero)
If you base your software decisions on whether or not it'll help you have sex with attractive women, that's your problem. The rest of us make our decisions based on our preferences, and what we want to look at/use on a regular basis.
but please please please can we stop acting like altering the UI of a program does anything even remotely useful?
Not every feature is core functionality. That doesn't make it irrelevant. I suppose next you'll be arguing that we shouldn't bother trying to make attractive user interfaces, because it isn't "remotely useful", and should spend our time on pure functionality instead?
Microsoft Intellimouse optical: The driver in the link doesn't recognize this mouse... What's really funny is MS's Mac Intellimouse driver works perfectly. This is a rather old mouse, it was one of the very first optical mice available($70 back in the day).
Huh? This is my mouse of choice, and I have never had any driver troubles with it under Windows. Windows comes with a driver that Just Works, what more do you want?
Hardly. Everyone with half a brain in the PC market takes Microsoft seriously as it is, they don't need to beg. It's foolish not to take the vendor of the standard OS seriously, after all.
It's funny, though, the position Microsoft is in. Being the industry standard, they have the luxury of letting vendors write drivers for them (unlike the Linux folks). But as they're finding out, this also puts them at the mercy of the vendors. Delicious irony, I'd say. I wonder if this will lead to Microsoft writing drivers themselves in the future?
I am, in fact, pretty young. I was born in '85. I'll accept that Reagan was a bigger con on the benefit of the doubt, but even then, one still has to give credit to Obama for his "achievement".;)
Exactly. Obama and McCain, we *know* will keep taking us down our current path. They have both shown this by their actions in the past. Our only hope in this election was to elect someone who wasn't one of those two, but due to the stupidity of the American people with respect to third parties, it was never going to happen. We had a shot that someone good would make it through the primaries, and our shot failed. Ever since then, we the people were doomed.
It's not the same, but it shows that Obama doesn't respect the rule of law we hold dear. After 8 years of a president with similar views on the law, this should set off huge fucking warning bells in everyone's head.
Instead, people got so caught up in the rhetoric that they refuse to examine the man objectively, and apologize for, and try to rationalize, everything he does. He doesn't even need PR staff!
I hope I'm wrong. I really, really do. I mean, you don't think I want to have a bad president who abuses his power, do you? If I eat my words in 4 years, I will be delighted to do so... I just fear that it's Obama's supporters who will be eating their words.
Well, there was no chance of that either way. We did, however, elect a bad president... but we were going to do that no matter what.
Obama, contrary to popular belief, is yet another power-hungry, self-serving politician. He proved this to anyone who pays attention when he cast his vote for telecom immunity (in other words: you can break the law, as long as the president says it's OK to do so). With a loose regard for the law like he showed he has, I do not look forward to seeing what new abuses of presidential power this man will perpetrate.
It's funny, though... Obama is quite possibly the biggest con man I've ever seen. I have great admiration for his skills at deceiving people, even as I'm disgusted with my fellow countrymen for being taken in by a swindler so easily. Truly an exemplary politician, even if he is a bad statesman.
I have consistently failed to understand how a "small government" party deems itself responsible to tell me what to do with my body.
You know, what bugs me about abortion advocates isn't that we disagree... I can handle that. It's the complete lack of intellectual honesty on their part (or at least on the part of all the ones I've ever heard speak), as demonstrated here.
Absolutely no one, pro-life or pro-choice, deems themselves responsible to tell you what to do with your body. I, and other pro-life people, contend that a child growing within a woman's body is not her damn body, it's another individual and as such is not something we can fuck with. Is it unfortunate that the woman has to bear the burden of carrying this individual for nine months? Yes. But I'll be damned if I let sympathy for that woman's plight extend to saying it's OK to violate that other individual's personal safety.
So please stop spewing this lie that pro-life people don't want women to control their bodies. It's every bit as shallow and dishonest as if I were to run around spewing lies that pro-choice people support murder. We don't disagree on either of those points, we disagree on the fundamental question of whether or not the unborn child should be considered an individual, with rights of its own to be protected.
And where in the constitution is the prohibition against federal spending on disaster recovery?
Methinks you didn't read our constitution carefully enough. Don't feel bad: it's a common error. See, the thing is, the constitution does not prohibit our government from doing things, it allows to do things. So, if something is not explicitly allowed in the constitution, it's effectively prohibited.
I never said that third parties are automatically good. I merely said that, in this election, the only decent candidates are third parties. Way to completely misread my statement.
Ron Paul comes to mind. I don't need to agree with every single thing a candidate has in mind, but that's not the same as "lesser of two evils". Voting for the lesser of two evils is voting for a candidate who I mostly disagree with, on the basis that I disagree with him less than his opposition. That is a truly wasted vote, and one I will never cast. I need to mostly agree with someone to vote for them.
I agree, and I wish they would. I was thinking of not voting because I'm so fed up with the mentality of the masses that keeps us locked into the current mess, but I'll vote anyway. As the Libertarian party pointed out, every vote they get this year helps them get on the ballot again in the future.
I don't think you get what he's talking about. He's saying that the church is an alternative power structure (undisputably true), but he isn't saying the church should rule in place of what is there now. He's saying that Christians shouldn't be devoted to the state - obedient, yes, but their true allegiance should lie elsewhere. The Christian's first devotion is to God, but that doesn't mean Christians seek to forcibly impose Christianity on the world. This is the fundamental difference between the OP and what you were comparing it to.
A valid criticism. I choose not to respond civilly to those who are not themselves civil. I've become so sick of/.'s rabid, irrational intolerance for religion that I'm going to bitch at those who practice it, even if it does make me look like an asshole.
Someone is going to have to tell me how this post is any better than a Muslim fundamentalist wanting a global Caliphate.
Because it's an extremely well-reasoned thought? Because he doesn't want to appoint a Christian dictator of the world (indeed, he says that he believes Christians should submit to the state, but shouldn't worry overmuch about it, as their goal is heavenly, not earthly)?
I'll be blunt: did you read this gentleman's post, or did you get as far as him mentioning religion, and then ignore what he said to bash him?
Quit yer bitching and go pull the lever for the lesser of two evils.
NEVER.
First, even if I wasn't diametrically opposed to both candidates, I will NEVER vote for a candidate I don't truly want in office. I can settle for someone that isn't quite as good as I'd like, but once they are going to do more bad than good, there is no way I will ever vote for them. The lesser of two evils is still evil.
Anyway, both candidates are purely unelectable in my book. They both supported telecom immunity for their spying on American citizens: in other words, they both support the law being bent when the president believes it should be. It will be a cold day in hell before I condone a man like that in my presidential office.
I think it's best if intolerant people (regardless of religious affiliation) stay at home.
they've done ENOUGH DAMAGE to our political system already.
Religion has nothing to do with how intelligent of a decision someone can make about our leaders. There are Christians who make smart and dumb votes, there are non-religious folks who make smart and dumb votes. Take the Obama-bots, for example. Many of them aren't religious, but will do a great deal of damage to our country today by voting for that man, because they've been sucked in by his false promises of "change".
some people simply like fairy tales so much they can't tell that its just not real.
If you want to make such a claim, prove it. Those who claim something is true must present proof, but so must those who claim it is false, especially when they choose to mock others' beliefs based on their claim that those beliefs are false.
Slashdot Mirror
Minor quibble, but please note when a link is potentially NSFW. That's probably not the sort of thing most of us want to be clicking on from our typical /.-reading environment.
I didn't say there was anything wrong with is - did I? Reading comprehension, get some.
It's because I have reading comprehension that I was able to see you heavily implied that there was a problem with this.
The grandparent specifically states that the thoughts interfere with his work performance, which implies they don't go in one ear and out the other. Reading comprehension, get some.
Right back at you. The grandparent, to a person with actual reading comprehension skills, seems to be making a joke about that more than he's being serious.
Even if he keeps his thoughts to himself - his inability to control them implies an incomplete ability to control his behavior.
Bullshit. Nothing about ability to control thoughts implies ability to control behavior. Behavior is far, far, far simpler to control than thoughts, which require rigorous discipline if you want to keep them out. On the other hand, if the OP's parents taught him basic self-control (and it would seem they did, otherwise he'd be posting from jail after killing the first person he got mad at), controlling behavior is trivial. You just don't do it.
Way to not only be an ass, but an incorrect ass at that. The vast majority of men have lascivious thoughts toward attractive women they're around at some point... that's natural. As long as you aren't dwelling on it, or harassing those women, there's absolutely nothing wrong with it. It's just like any other thought that goes in one ear, and out the other.
The suggestion that this is the source of the GP's trouble with women is laughable as well, since, presumably, he has the good manners to keep these thoughts to himself, like most men do. Again, if you keep it to yourself, no one is going to care (or even know, for that matter). Women aren't the damn thought police, they don't sit around judging you by your unspoken urges (or if they do, it's because they're bitches who make assumptions and judge you by that).
Finally, at no point in the GP did he "blame" the women he's around for "forcing" him to have lascivious thoughts. He merely observed that being around them causes him to have lascivious thoughts, and that it makes things more difficult for him... which is 100% true. There is no blame in that statement, just fact.
MAC addresses are indeed trivial to spoof, but is it necessarily trivial to figure out what addresses are on the "allowed" list? I would think this would be the part that would make MAC filtering useful.
I like iTunes specifically because it doesn't waste my time with themes and skins and color choices.
If you don't want to skin your software, use the defaults. There is no increase in usability or value by not providing the option.
How many times has an attractive woman looked at the customized UI for your software and thought "Wow. There's a guy I'd like to get it on with". (Answer: Zero)
If you base your software decisions on whether or not it'll help you have sex with attractive women, that's your problem. The rest of us make our decisions based on our preferences, and what we want to look at/use on a regular basis.
but please please please can we stop acting like altering the UI of a program does anything even remotely useful?
Not every feature is core functionality. That doesn't make it irrelevant. I suppose next you'll be arguing that we shouldn't bother trying to make attractive user interfaces, because it isn't "remotely useful", and should spend our time on pure functionality instead?
Actually, the mouse in question is USB, and it does not need a special driver (at least since Windows XP, I'm uncertain about before then).
Microsoft Intellimouse optical: The driver in the link doesn't recognize this mouse... What's really funny is MS's Mac Intellimouse driver works perfectly. This is a rather old mouse, it was one of the very first optical mice available($70 back in the day).
Huh? This is my mouse of choice, and I have never had any driver troubles with it under Windows. Windows comes with a driver that Just Works, what more do you want?
Hardly. Everyone with half a brain in the PC market takes Microsoft seriously as it is, they don't need to beg. It's foolish not to take the vendor of the standard OS seriously, after all.
It's funny, though, the position Microsoft is in. Being the industry standard, they have the luxury of letting vendors write drivers for them (unlike the Linux folks). But as they're finding out, this also puts them at the mercy of the vendors. Delicious irony, I'd say. I wonder if this will lead to Microsoft writing drivers themselves in the future?
I am, in fact, pretty young. I was born in '85. I'll accept that Reagan was a bigger con on the benefit of the doubt, but even then, one still has to give credit to Obama for his "achievement". ;)
Exactly. Obama and McCain, we *know* will keep taking us down our current path. They have both shown this by their actions in the past. Our only hope in this election was to elect someone who wasn't one of those two, but due to the stupidity of the American people with respect to third parties, it was never going to happen. We had a shot that someone good would make it through the primaries, and our shot failed. Ever since then, we the people were doomed.
It's not the same, but it shows that Obama doesn't respect the rule of law we hold dear. After 8 years of a president with similar views on the law, this should set off huge fucking warning bells in everyone's head.
Instead, people got so caught up in the rhetoric that they refuse to examine the man objectively, and apologize for, and try to rationalize, everything he does. He doesn't even need PR staff!
I hope I'm wrong. I really, really do. I mean, you don't think I want to have a bad president who abuses his power, do you? If I eat my words in 4 years, I will be delighted to do so... I just fear that it's Obama's supporters who will be eating their words.
Well, there was no chance of that either way. We did, however, elect a bad president... but we were going to do that no matter what.
Obama, contrary to popular belief, is yet another power-hungry, self-serving politician. He proved this to anyone who pays attention when he cast his vote for telecom immunity (in other words: you can break the law, as long as the president says it's OK to do so). With a loose regard for the law like he showed he has, I do not look forward to seeing what new abuses of presidential power this man will perpetrate.
It's funny, though... Obama is quite possibly the biggest con man I've ever seen. I have great admiration for his skills at deceiving people, even as I'm disgusted with my fellow countrymen for being taken in by a swindler so easily. Truly an exemplary politician, even if he is a bad statesman.
I have consistently failed to understand how a "small government" party deems itself responsible to tell me what to do with my body.
You know, what bugs me about abortion advocates isn't that we disagree... I can handle that. It's the complete lack of intellectual honesty on their part (or at least on the part of all the ones I've ever heard speak), as demonstrated here.
Absolutely no one, pro-life or pro-choice, deems themselves responsible to tell you what to do with your body. I, and other pro-life people, contend that a child growing within a woman's body is not her damn body, it's another individual and as such is not something we can fuck with. Is it unfortunate that the woman has to bear the burden of carrying this individual for nine months? Yes. But I'll be damned if I let sympathy for that woman's plight extend to saying it's OK to violate that other individual's personal safety.
So please stop spewing this lie that pro-life people don't want women to control their bodies. It's every bit as shallow and dishonest as if I were to run around spewing lies that pro-choice people support murder. We don't disagree on either of those points, we disagree on the fundamental question of whether or not the unborn child should be considered an individual, with rights of its own to be protected.
And where in the constitution is the prohibition against federal spending on disaster recovery?
Methinks you didn't read our constitution carefully enough. Don't feel bad: it's a common error. See, the thing is, the constitution does not prohibit our government from doing things, it allows to do things. So, if something is not explicitly allowed in the constitution, it's effectively prohibited.
I never said that third parties are automatically good. I merely said that, in this election, the only decent candidates are third parties. Way to completely misread my statement.
Ron Paul comes to mind. I don't need to agree with every single thing a candidate has in mind, but that's not the same as "lesser of two evils". Voting for the lesser of two evils is voting for a candidate who I mostly disagree with, on the basis that I disagree with him less than his opposition. That is a truly wasted vote, and one I will never cast. I need to mostly agree with someone to vote for them.
I agree, and I wish they would. I was thinking of not voting because I'm so fed up with the mentality of the masses that keeps us locked into the current mess, but I'll vote anyway. As the Libertarian party pointed out, every vote they get this year helps them get on the ballot again in the future.
I don't think you get what he's talking about. He's saying that the church is an alternative power structure (undisputably true), but he isn't saying the church should rule in place of what is there now. He's saying that Christians shouldn't be devoted to the state - obedient, yes, but their true allegiance should lie elsewhere. The Christian's first devotion is to God, but that doesn't mean Christians seek to forcibly impose Christianity on the world. This is the fundamental difference between the OP and what you were comparing it to.
Well, well said. I'm glad to know that there's at least someone else besides me who sees this problem.
shut the fuck up
civilized discussion
hypocrite much?
A valid criticism. I choose not to respond civilly to those who are not themselves civil. I've become so sick of /.'s rabid, irrational intolerance for religion that I'm going to bitch at those who practice it, even if it does make me look like an asshole.
Someone is going to have to tell me how this post is any better than a Muslim fundamentalist wanting a global Caliphate.
Because it's an extremely well-reasoned thought? Because he doesn't want to appoint a Christian dictator of the world (indeed, he says that he believes Christians should submit to the state, but shouldn't worry overmuch about it, as their goal is heavenly, not earthly)?
I'll be blunt: did you read this gentleman's post, or did you get as far as him mentioning religion, and then ignore what he said to bash him?
Quit yer bitching and go pull the lever for the lesser of two evils.
NEVER.
First, even if I wasn't diametrically opposed to both candidates, I will NEVER vote for a candidate I don't truly want in office. I can settle for someone that isn't quite as good as I'd like, but once they are going to do more bad than good, there is no way I will ever vote for them. The lesser of two evils is still evil.
Anyway, both candidates are purely unelectable in my book. They both supported telecom immunity for their spying on American citizens: in other words, they both support the law being bent when the president believes it should be. It will be a cold day in hell before I condone a man like that in my presidential office.
No, it's when people label an interesting, well-thought-out and well-written analysis of someone's voting plan as "troll" that one really loses hope.
Religious intolerance has reached a new low on /. when someone is called a troll merely for talking about their faith. Sad.
I think its best that religious folks stay home.
I think it's best if intolerant people (regardless of religious affiliation) stay at home.
they've done ENOUGH DAMAGE to our political system already.
Religion has nothing to do with how intelligent of a decision someone can make about our leaders. There are Christians who make smart and dumb votes, there are non-religious folks who make smart and dumb votes. Take the Obama-bots, for example. Many of them aren't religious, but will do a great deal of damage to our country today by voting for that man, because they've been sucked in by his false promises of "change".
some people simply like fairy tales so much they can't tell that its just not real.
If you want to make such a claim, prove it. Those who claim something is true must present proof, but so must those who claim it is false, especially when they choose to mock others' beliefs based on their claim that those beliefs are false.