This isn't an offtopic comment at all. A new section was launched, there's a problem with the new section, that problem's posted in that section. What's the problem?
Verifying bugs submitted by customers and QA, going through older bugs to see if they're still present in the latest release of the application, and trying to get up to speed so that I can code here in a few weeks.
I just started a new job 2 weeks ago. I haven't touched any code other than two trivial patches to some HTML. I expect it'll be another 2 weeks before I touch any actual code, and it'll be a few months before I'll touch anything that customers rely on. This is the same process that happens everywhere, the difference being that in the Linux kernel it's more open and ability based.
For example, if you can't find a job that pays well enough to feed your family, the Libertarian response is "Well, the market has spoken. You aren't needed. Sorry."
Whereas a democrat would say, "Stab Bill Gates, take his money and live in his house instead." Republicans would just slaughter your children and bathe in their blood because they are pure evil.
I can see why you troll like that, it's kind of fun to push another ideology to the extreme and then say that it's immoral. The real philosophy of libertarians is that nobody should be forced to do something, like give up their money to help others. Virtue shouldn't be forced. Almost anyone can get a job, even if it's just working at wal mart. Almost everyone has friends that can help them out or family that can give them a place to stay. A typical response would be that you can't live off of wal mart's pay, to which I reply that you should make do with the smaller paycheck, get another job or get skills that pay more.
The point of the matter is that most libertarians I know are very kind people who give a lot to charity, they just believe in freedom of choice. If you honestly couldn't find a job that could feed your family, then they would try to give you a leg up to get that job, they just wouldn't believe that the government should force them to give it to you.
Whereas I thought it was painfully obvious that a lot of republicans can take a joke at their own expense and laugh about it. It scares me that this might not be obvious to some.
Because it's the formation of behavior in large groups when you add anonymity. It's of great interest to people who study human behavior. When is it right and when is it wrong to troll? What measures can prevent trolling, what measures can deal with it after the fact? What size of group first attracts trolls? These are all questions that can have a wider impact on our understanding of humans.
supersloshy: "Come on, mom, I'm 32 years old, I can look at porn if I want to."
mom: "Not while you're living under my roof without paying rent!"
step-dad: "Besides, son, I hear it can help protect you against that dns cache poisoning that's been going on."
supersloshy: "Shut up! You're not my real dad!"
real dad: "Now supersloshy, you obey your step father, even if he does dress funny and try too hard."
supersloshy: "I hate you! I wish I'd never been born!"
What useless hyperbole. I love the awesome bar; I got to a lot of really obscure URLs during the day, and it's nice to be able to do a quick search for places I've been to. As far as I can tell, your biggest complaint is that it's different from how it used to be, much like my grandpa's biggest complaint with upgrading his computer.
My grandpa died of Alzheimer's related causes (starved to death, basically) and I can honestly say that when he finally decided it was Alzheimer's, taking the drug would have been a big help. He still knew who I was and could function in daily life, he just didn't have the short term memory that he used to have.
IMHO, I don't think that prolonging his childish state would be helpful to anyone involved. He was happy right up until the day that he died, but everyone who knew and loved him was hurting plenty the whole time.
Actually, I disagree. The presidency is devolving because it's one person who has to appeal to a majority of the country. Appealing to the majority of a state is very different, and the voters in state elections will feel like they have more power over the outcome than they do over a national election (which is true). This is one of the rationales behind limited federal power, that people will have more oversight of state and local elections because it's a smaller group, something that people can relate to more. It also puts the spotlight back onto local and state elections, because right now the federal elections are many times more important than the local ones.
Sorry, got lost in my rant there. Where the president has to appeal to the whole country, a senator or congressman has to appeal to a state and they have to campaign exclusively in that one area. It's a lot easier to spot a party hack when you see all the commercials that they run and you can go to every speech that they give.
Term limits would solve that problem both by definition and by addressing a core problem - length of time served equals power in both houses. Then there's the problem that races tend to involve two absolutely shitty choices. Even with some pretty blatant gerrymandering, Utah republicans can't oust democrat Jim Matheson from congress because they keep nominating idiots to run against him.
The consequence of this system is that corruption never gets rooted out and a bunch of old men are deciding the future of a country that's changing very rapidly. I'll vote against incumbents when they give me a good alternative, and that doesn't happen too often.
Actually, no, clueless asshats don't laugh at it, people who know about the subject laugh at it. The analogy is simple to the point of being useless and is only useful for those who don't have any clue at all about how the internet works, which is a quickly shrinking minority. That someone in such a position is a member of that minority is embarrassing.
Honestly, I don't see this devolving into partisan bickering because everyone hates congress and the senate and everyone knows that people on both sides of the aisle are corrupt. I'm a republican and I freakin' hate this guy. Everyone I know hates corruption in the government, and this guy was one of the most corrupt out there.
Who says an MMO has to be like those that've come before? Why not an RTS/TBS type MMO?
As long as the developers can throw in meaningful persistence (most easily done with RPGs), I don't see any reason that an RTS or TBS wouldn't work as an MMO. Cavedog was doing something along those lines with their boneyard service for TA and the crusades for TA Kingdoms. Unfortunately, internet gameplay was still problematic and cavedog became an unfortunate casualty of bad management.
Power's generated mostly with coal. Current projections estimate that we have hundreds of years worth of coal left; calling coal a temporary fix isn't useful either, considering 100 years will likely bring technological changes that we can't even begin to predict.
Slashdot Mirror
This isn't an offtopic comment at all. A new section was launched, there's a problem with the new section, that problem's posted in that section. What's the problem?
Verifying bugs submitted by customers and QA, going through older bugs to see if they're still present in the latest release of the application, and trying to get up to speed so that I can code here in a few weeks.
I just started a new job 2 weeks ago. I haven't touched any code other than two trivial patches to some HTML. I expect it'll be another 2 weeks before I touch any actual code, and it'll be a few months before I'll touch anything that customers rely on. This is the same process that happens everywhere, the difference being that in the Linux kernel it's more open and ability based.
In their defense, Germany lost both wars, so I think we've earned the right not to pronounce the german part of the name.
For example, if you can't find a job that pays well enough to feed your family, the Libertarian response is "Well, the market has spoken. You aren't needed. Sorry."
Whereas a democrat would say, "Stab Bill Gates, take his money and live in his house instead." Republicans would just slaughter your children and bathe in their blood because they are pure evil.
I can see why you troll like that, it's kind of fun to push another ideology to the extreme and then say that it's immoral. The real philosophy of libertarians is that nobody should be forced to do something, like give up their money to help others. Virtue shouldn't be forced. Almost anyone can get a job, even if it's just working at wal mart. Almost everyone has friends that can help them out or family that can give them a place to stay. A typical response would be that you can't live off of wal mart's pay, to which I reply that you should make do with the smaller paycheck, get another job or get skills that pay more.
The point of the matter is that most libertarians I know are very kind people who give a lot to charity, they just believe in freedom of choice. If you honestly couldn't find a job that could feed your family, then they would try to give you a leg up to get that job, they just wouldn't believe that the government should force them to give it to you.
hey, lets lower taxes and not increase spending, that's a *great* idea,
That's one of the best fucking ideas I've ever heard. However, from your criticism, I'm guessing the word "not" wasn't supposed to be in there.
But most republican politicians seem to like bigger government! I'm so confused...
I'm sure that Uwe Boll can find a way.
They were always as bad as Microsoft morally, they've just gotten better at the technical portion of it.
That is what ~95% (though rapidly decreasing) of people choose to do.
For certain values of rapid. They gain a few percentage points a year, which means they're only 20 years from dominance!
Whereas I thought it was painfully obvious that a lot of republicans can take a joke at their own expense and laugh about it. It scares me that this might not be obvious to some.
Because it's the formation of behavior in large groups when you add anonymity. It's of great interest to people who study human behavior. When is it right and when is it wrong to troll? What measures can prevent trolling, what measures can deal with it after the fact? What size of group first attracts trolls? These are all questions that can have a wider impact on our understanding of humans.
Charge them with trespassing like you would anyone else?
Wait a minute. THE Sancho fucked a goat? I've gotta go tell my friends!
supersloshy: "Come on, mom, I'm 32 years old, I can look at porn if I want to."
mom: "Not while you're living under my roof without paying rent!"
step-dad: "Besides, son, I hear it can help protect you against that dns cache poisoning that's been going on."
supersloshy: "Shut up! You're not my real dad!"
real dad: "Now supersloshy, you obey your step father, even if he does dress funny and try too hard."
supersloshy: "I hate you! I wish I'd never been born!"
Whole thing sounds kind of silly now, huh?
What useless hyperbole. I love the awesome bar; I got to a lot of really obscure URLs during the day, and it's nice to be able to do a quick search for places I've been to. As far as I can tell, your biggest complaint is that it's different from how it used to be, much like my grandpa's biggest complaint with upgrading his computer.
My grandpa died of Alzheimer's related causes (starved to death, basically) and I can honestly say that when he finally decided it was Alzheimer's, taking the drug would have been a big help. He still knew who I was and could function in daily life, he just didn't have the short term memory that he used to have.
IMHO, I don't think that prolonging his childish state would be helpful to anyone involved. He was happy right up until the day that he died, but everyone who knew and loved him was hurting plenty the whole time.
Actually, I disagree. The presidency is devolving because it's one person who has to appeal to a majority of the country. Appealing to the majority of a state is very different, and the voters in state elections will feel like they have more power over the outcome than they do over a national election (which is true). This is one of the rationales behind limited federal power, that people will have more oversight of state and local elections because it's a smaller group, something that people can relate to more. It also puts the spotlight back onto local and state elections, because right now the federal elections are many times more important than the local ones.
Sorry, got lost in my rant there. Where the president has to appeal to the whole country, a senator or congressman has to appeal to a state and they have to campaign exclusively in that one area. It's a lot easier to spot a party hack when you see all the commercials that they run and you can go to every speech that they give.
That's just my 2 cents.
Term limits would solve that problem both by definition and by addressing a core problem - length of time served equals power in both houses. Then there's the problem that races tend to involve two absolutely shitty choices. Even with some pretty blatant gerrymandering, Utah republicans can't oust democrat Jim Matheson from congress because they keep nominating idiots to run against him.
The consequence of this system is that corruption never gets rooted out and a bunch of old men are deciding the future of a country that's changing very rapidly. I'll vote against incumbents when they give me a good alternative, and that doesn't happen too often.
Actually, no, clueless asshats don't laugh at it, people who know about the subject laugh at it. The analogy is simple to the point of being useless and is only useful for those who don't have any clue at all about how the internet works, which is a quickly shrinking minority. That someone in such a position is a member of that minority is embarrassing.
Honestly, I don't see this devolving into partisan bickering because everyone hates congress and the senate and everyone knows that people on both sides of the aisle are corrupt. I'm a republican and I freakin' hate this guy. Everyone I know hates corruption in the government, and this guy was one of the most corrupt out there.
Who says an MMO has to be like those that've come before? Why not an RTS/TBS type MMO?
As long as the developers can throw in meaningful persistence (most easily done with RPGs), I don't see any reason that an RTS or TBS wouldn't work as an MMO. Cavedog was doing something along those lines with their boneyard service for TA and the crusades for TA Kingdoms. Unfortunately, internet gameplay was still problematic and cavedog became an unfortunate casualty of bad management.
However, they also have the benefit of wide-open plains that, for the most part, won't be adversely affected by more modern solar methods.
I'm no scientist, but won't the extreme angle of the sun during the summer and the lack of sun during winter adversely impact their solar production?
Funny, I told her the same thing last night.
Power's generated mostly with coal. Current projections estimate that we have hundreds of years worth of coal left; calling coal a temporary fix isn't useful either, considering 100 years will likely bring technological changes that we can't even begin to predict.